Social Innovations in Post-Soviet Countries 0367761734, 9780367761738

Citation preview

Social Innovations in Post-Soviet Countries

This book evaluates the evolution of social innovation in post-Soviet Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Caucasus. Following the dissolution of the USSR, organizations such as the UNDP have encouraged local communities and governments to innovate in order to find solutions to existing social problems. This book demonstrates that progress with social innovations has varied, with countries with low government support such as Uzbekistan struggling, whereas countries with better government support and a more active civil society, such as Armenia and Ukraine, have seen more positive results. Covering the period 2012–2020 and a broad range of countries, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, this book provides an impressively broad-ranging critical analysis of post-Soviet social innovation. Including social innovations emerging as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, this will be an important comparative study for researchers and practitioners working on social innovation, and for those with an interest in post-Soviet development. Bakhrom Radjabov completed his PhD at the University of Tsukuba, Japan, and is an Adjunct Professor at the Webster University.

Routledge Studies in Development and Society

Feminist Advocacy, Family Law and Violence against Women International Perspectives Edited by Mahnaz Akhami, Yakin Ertürk and Ann Elizabeth Mayer Civil Society in the Global South Edited by Palash Kamruzzaman Quality in Higher Education as a Tool for Human Development Enhancing Teaching and Learning in Zimbabwe Patience Mukwambo Cultural Resistance and Security from Below Power and Escape through Capoeira Zoë Marriage The Prior Consultation of Indigenous Peoples in Latin America Inside the Implementation Gap Edited by Claire Wright and Alexandra Tomaselli Transnational Social Mobilisation and Minority Rights Identity, Advocacy and Norms Corinne Lennox Women’s Economic Empowerment Insights from Africa and South Asia Edited by Kate Grantham, Gillian Dowie, and Arjan de Haan Social Innovations in Post-Soviet Countries Bakhrom Radjabov For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Development-and-Society/book-series/SE0317

Social Innovations in Post-Soviet Countries

Bakhrom Radjabov

First published 2022 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Bakhrom Radjabov The right of Bakhrom Radjabov to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Radjabov, Bakhrom, author. Title: Social innovations in post-Soviet countries / Bakhrom Radjabov. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. | Series: Routledge studies in development and society | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2021059982 (print) | LCCN 2021059983 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367761738 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367761745 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003127703 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Europe, Eastern—Social policy—21st century. | Europe, Central—Social policy—21st century. | Asia, Central—Social policy—21st century. | Caucasus—Social policy—21st century. Classification: LCC HN380.7.A8 R33 2022 (print) | LCC HN380.7.A8 (ebook) | DDC 306.0943—dc23/eng/20211228 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021059982 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021059983 ISBN: 978-0-367-76173-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-76174-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-16580-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804 Typeset in Bembo by codeMantra

Contents

List of tables

vii

Introduction

1

1 Background

3

2 Generation, features and assessment of the ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Central Asia

51

3 Generation, features and assessment of the ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Caucasus

98

4 Generation, features and assessment of ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

135

5 COVID-19 and ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries 165 6 Analysis and conclusion on ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries: findings and perspectives Index

179 201

Tables

1.1 List of organizations supporting ‘social innovation’ projects 3 1.2 ‘Social innovation’ projects driven by actors in distinct sectors 5 1.3 Social innovation cycle 31 1.4 Description of the key elements of innovation according to ANT 33 1.5 Key elements of social practice 37 1.6 Levels of operation of social innovation 37 1.7 Social practice generation stages 38 1.8 Common features of social innovations 39 1.9 List of interviewees 39 2.1 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan 53 2.2 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kyrgyzstan 55 2.3 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Tajikistan 56 2.4 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan supported by UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project, 2012–2014 58 2.5 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan supported by ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I 61 3.1 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Azerbaijan 99 3.2 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia (Kolba Lab) 102 3.3 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia (Mardamej) 104 3.4 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Georgia 106 4.1 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Ukraine 138 4.2 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Moldova 142 6.1 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan against social innovations criteria 181 6.2 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kyrgyzstan against social innovations criteria 182 6.3 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Tajikistan against social innovations criteria 183 6.4 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan against social innovations criteria 184 6.5 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Azerbaijan against social innovations criteria 185

viii Tables

6.6 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia against social innovations criteria 6.7 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Georgia against social innovations criteria 6.8 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Ukraine against social innovations criteria 6.9 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Moldova against social innovations criteria

186 187 188 189

Introduction

This book consists of six chapters. It commences from the brief Introduction that provides an overview outlining its organization and structure. Chapter One covers background information on ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs) in post-Soviet countries. It brief ly presents theoretical and c­ onceptual problems as well as the gaps in the scholarly literature this book intends to ­address. Subsequently, the chapter puts the current book in the context of ­social innovation research and demonstrates its particular contribution and significance. The chapter also presents a brief methodology and methods ­applied in the research to draw conclusions. It explains the use of s­ocial practice and human development theories and the literature for the data collection and analysis, as well as the formulation and application of social ­innovation criteria. In the chapter, the argument guiding the author and the reader throughout the book is also streamlined. Chapter Two discusses social innovations in post-Soviet Central Asian countries and explains how they have been developed in Kazakhstan, ­ Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Chapter Three focuses on social ­ ­innovations in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia followed by Chapter Four on ­social innovations in Moldova and Ukraine. These three chapters analyze how social innovations were generated in post-Soviet countries, critically assessing SIPs in these countries against the criteria of social innovation. This assessment helps to identify peculiarities of SIPs in the post-Soviet context and examines how they have fared as social innovations. Each of these chapters also has a dedicated section to discuss the developmental feature of SIPs supported by the UNDP, UNICEF, USAID and other donors in post-Soviet countries which contributed to the emergence of a new developmental type of social innovation. They explain how the donors’ development work has changed in light of shifting to social innovations, and specifically examine the volitional and developmental approach of the UNDP and other development organizations to SIPs in post-Soviet countries. Finally, these chapters note and discuss how the social innovation concept was intermixed with other terms used by national partners and leaders of SIPs, and how this might diminish the social innovation concept. DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-1

2 Introduction

Chapter Five is dedicated to social innovation projects undertaken in r­esponse to the Covid-19 pandemic, to primarily address the challenges health and social care sectors of the post-Soviet countries have faced as a ­result of the virus outbreak. This chapter explains how projects in post-Soviet countries have progressed and what challenges persist in preventing them from becoming social innovations. It also demonstrates and explains the positive dynamics of the changing political, societal and entrepreneurial environment in several post-Soviet countries where social innovations had been previously discouraged. Chapter Six summarizes and analyzes the results of the research and ­d iscusses perspectives of social innovation in post-Soviet countries. This ­chapter offers a summary of the evaluation of ‘social innovation’ projects in ­post-Soviet countries by pointing out whether and how they fared as social innovations. It also discusses how the social innovation concept evolved and what the peculiarities of this phenomenon are in the post-Soviet developing countries. The chapter concludes the book by highlighting the main findings and identifying potential topics for further research.

1 Background

Social Innovations in Post-Soviet Countries aims to evaluate ‘social innovation’ ­projects (SIPs) and uncover their particular features in order to discuss the evolution of the social innovation concept in post-Soviet countries, namely in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), in the ­Eastern Europe (Moldova, Ukraine) and in the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, A ­ rmenia, Georgia). It focuses on SIPs that have been undertaken in those countries by government, private and civil society organizations (CSOs)/volunteers with development assistance from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), European Union (EU), Civil Society Development Association (ARGO) and Internews. This book covers the period from 2012 to 2020 and contributes to knowledge on social innovation through the yet lacking critical analysis of social innovations in post-Soviet countries. Table 1.1 presents the list of umbrella ­organizations supporting social innovations in post-Soviet countries. Table 1.1  List of organizations supporting ‘social innovation’ projects Country/organization

When ‘social innovation’ projects were launched (year)

Kazakhstan AstanaHuba and UNICEF Partnership for Innovations (P4I)/Civil Society Development Association (ARGO)b USAID Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia (later USAID Social Innovation in Central Asia)c Eurasian Foundation of Central Asiad Kyrgyzstan Social Innovation Lab Kyrgyzstan (SILK)e Tajikistan Internewsf

2019 2015 2019 2016 2021 2017 (Continued)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-2

4 Background Country/organization

Uzbekistan UNDP/UNV “Social innovations and volunteerism” Projectg “Yuksalish” Nationwide movement, Partnership For Innovations (P4I) projecth Azerbaijan Social Innovation Lab (SIL)i The State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (ASAN)j Accelerator Labsk

When ‘social innovation’ projects were launched (year) 2012 2019

2016 2012 2019

Georgia Service Lab Public Service Development Agencyl

2014

Armenia Kolba Labm Eurasia Partnership Foundation n

2013 2014

Ukraine Close to You Foundation (ADV)o SocialBoost p TAPASq Eidosr

2019 2012 2016 2012

Moldova UNDP MILabs Close to You Foundation (ADV)t

2014 2020

Source: own table a See https://astanahub.com/. b See http://cso-central.asia/. c See https://www.usaid.gov/central-asia-regional/fact-sheets/civil-society-support-programcentral-asia. d See www.ef-ca.kz. e See https://www.auca.kg/en/dss_silk/. f See https://media.tj/. g See https://undp.akvoapp.org/en/project/918/#summary. h See https://www.yumh.uz/?lang=en. i See https://sil.vc/. j See https://www.asan.gov.az/en. k See https://acceleratorlabs.undp.org/. l See http://servicelab.sda.gov.ge/en/tag/service-lab/. m See http://kolba.am/. n See https://epfarmenia.am/. o See https://alaturidevoi.ro/en/. p See https://socialboost.com.ua/. q See https://tapas.org.ua/en/. r See http://eidos.org.ua/#all. s See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/projects/moldova-social-­ innovation-hub-2.html. t See https://alaturidevoi.ro/en/.

Background  5

1.1  Selection of case studies The nine selected post-Soviet countries vary in their ethnic, demographic, historical, political and economic background. These differences are ­acknowledged; however, the differences between the countries do not entail crucial implications on the social innovations implemented. Concurrently, the following similarities make the social innovations supported by the s­elected umbrella organizations fully comparable: (a) they have been operating with the support from the government, private and CSOs in p­ ost-Soviet countries; (b) they have been supported by donor organizations such as UNDP, USAID, UNICEF, EU and Internews; (c) they have been operating in countries with similar Soviet governance history and traditions. Since SIPs supported by the umbrella organizations had been launched not long ago, the study did not expect them to be able to make a social change. However, the study considered social innovations in post-Soviet countries as having the potential of progressing towards this level over time. Table 1.2 demonstrates the sectors to which organizations supporting SIPs belong. Table 1.2  ‘Social innovation’ projects driven by actors in distinct sectors Countries

International Donor/ICSO

Government

Kazakhstan UNICEF and Astana Hub USAID Kyrgyzstan OSF Tajikistan Internews Uzbekistan UNDP/UNV Azerbaijan Georgia Armenia Ukraine Moldova

Local CSO, academic institution EF ARGO American University of Central Asia ARGO

“Yuksalish” Nationwide movement ASAN

UNDP UNDP through ServiceLab under MoJ UNDP, EU, EF UNDP, EU, Youth Public Organization “New EF, ADV European Generation” UNDP, EU, Academy of Public Ecoul Cernobilului ADV Administration Foundation; Association of Cross-border Cooperation “Lower Danube Euroregion” /Romania; Ecoul Cernobilului Foundation; Cross-Border Cooperation and European Integration Agency.

Source: own table

6 Background

1.1.1  Central Asia Kazakhstan showcased good examples of SIPs supported by the ­government, international donors and CSOs in Central Asia. For i­nstance, government-affiliated Astana Hub in collaboration with UNICEF in ­ K azakhstan launched the Social Innovation Lab (SIL)1 in 2019 to solve ­ children’s social problems. Earlier in 2015–2016, the Partnership for ­ ­Innovations (P4I) Program of the ARGO and Eurasian Foundation of Central Asia had been supporting social innovations in the civic sector that were subsequently funded also by the USAID Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia (now USAID Social Innovation in Central Asia). Hence, SIPs were spread across governmental and civic sectors in Kazakhstan, serving different needs of those domains. For instance, one of the projects of the SIL was ‘Accessible Kazakhstan’ aimed at making information about the accessibility of urban facilities and services available to the public. By using open-source data, this service allows people with limited mobility to navigate in urban space. In case the object is missing on the map, it is possible to share information about it with everyone.2 Another project that has been supported by the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia is Impact Hub Almaty, a platform for cooperation and innovations in entrepreneurship –being the first such platform in Central Asia. The platform helped to develop social and creative entrepreneurship, carried out mentoring programs and offered networking opportunities. In Kyrgyzstan, social innovations have received their momentum quite recently, after a Social Innovation Lab Kyrgyzstan (SILK) within the American University of Central Asia (AUCA) was established on an initiative of its Division of Social Sciences faculty. SILK’s aim is to focus on the socially significant projects in Kyrgyzstan, generating solutions to the existing s­ocial problems. SILK applies a purely research and civic approach and is open to researchers from Central Asia interested to contribute to the solution of ­regional social problems. In Tajikistan, social innovations have been launched in 2017 through the Media and SIL event held in Dushanbe. The Lab was organized in the framework of ARGO’s ‘Partnership for Innovations – P4I’ and Internews’ ‘Access to Information’ Programs with the support of the USAID and Innovation for Change.3 The event has gathered 80 experts, representatives of media, CSOs and IT specialists from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.4 In Uzbekistan, the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project led by the UNDP and by the UNV was the first ‘social innovation’ supporting umbrella project. The UNDP applied two ­modalities for the implementation of development projects: Direct ­ Implementation Modality (DIM) and National Implementation Modality (NIM). The ­ UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project fell under the modality of Direct Implementation, meaning that it was implemented by the UNDP alone, without involving a national partner (ministry

Background  7

or local organization in Uzbekistan): the Project was implemented by the UNDP Good Governance Unit jointly with the UNV Program in Uzbekistan while cooperation with national partner organizations was based on memorandums of understanding. The project managed 33 small-scale SIPs implemented locally. Among them was, for example, a SIP ‘Infobox’, a mobile app containing the information about Bukhara City, available for both tourists and locals. The primary goal of the project was to offer assistance to local residents to map Bukhara’s tourist destinations and provide information on how local authorities and agencies can be accessed by tourists and locals. The project was designed by a team of individuals from Bukhara’s local community, introducing a new interaction opportunity between citizens and government authorities, as well as developing user-friendly services through crowdsourcing and mapping. Other small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV projects in Uzbekistan included information and communications technology (ICT) projects, engineering/infrastructure projects, education/training and workshops, filming and other art projects. In 2019, “Yuksalish” Nationwide Movement and the ARGO agreed to launch a P4I Program supporting CSOs in Uzbekistan to encourage cooperation between them, the private sector and the government to enhance the role of civil society. The Program focused on the areas of human rights, gender issues, youth affairs, rights of the people with disabilities and e­ nvironment.5 Due to the launch of the P4I Program, SIPs have been again prioritized in Uzbekistan after a five-year break: for instance, within the P4I Program ­local civic councils throughout Uzbekistan were supported and CSO ‘Nihol’ launched a Chat bot to provide psychological support to people amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 1.1.2 Caucasus In Azerbaijan, the government and private sectors support social innovations. In 2021, the State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (ASAN) was created6 to facilitate an efficient delivery of public electronic services to the citizens through ASAN service centers.7 An SIL was set up as a startup generating studio with a goal to reach an annual capacity of 50 tech startups by 2025.8 SIL has a clear business-oriented approach aimed at nurturing tech entrepreneurs and serving as a pipeline for startups. The Lab offers mentoring services and encourages its mentees to participate in a variety of events9 and accelerators.10 In 2019, the UNDP with its partners initiated a network on sustainable development that now has expanded to 91 Acceleration Labs across 115 countries.11 The Labs are designed to run UNDP’s vision on innovations within the wider UNDP’s development vision towards the 2030 development agenda.

8 Background

The Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan is a member of this network ­d riving ­social innovations for development. The Accelerator Lab has ­supported the creation of a mobile application for COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment,12 as well as ‘Evdeqal’, the country’s first-ever ‘one-stop-shop’ portal for all ­e-services from healthcare to food delivery that offers free advertising space to companies.13 Georgia has pioneered in the establishment of a government innovation lab – the Service Lab – in South Caucasus. With the support of the UNDP, the Service Lab was set up within the Public Service Development Agency of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia in 2014.14 The Service Lab is focused on the innovative creation and development of user-centered public services, enabling them to address existing needs and solve complex challenges. One example of a project supported by Service Lab is Emergency and Primary Services for People with Disabilities. The project was a new approach in services delivery allowing deaf and hard of hearing people to access the most essential services such as emergency calls and civil registry services.15 In Armenia, the UN established the SIL – Kolba Lab in 2013 to ­develop and implement ‘social innovations’, using Big Data16 for their ­development. Kolba Lab was funded by the EU and supported 14 smallscale SIPs in ­A rmenia. While the idea behind Kolba Lab was to embrace new technologies and methodologies in the development work, it incubated social ­i nnovation startups and selected ideas through a local government challenge – mylocgov – to tackle problems in local governments and communities. Kolba Lab had two approaches to the development of SIPs in Armenia: (1) innovation challenge – ideas competition for social innovation startups in local communities, and (2) local government challenge for SIPs in local governments. For example, an SIP supported by the UNDP, the ‘Consumers’ Rights Protection Chat bot’ or simply ‘Chat bot’, would allow users to report violations of their consumers’ rights to the relevant government bodies and to get a legal advice on consumers’ rights protection. The Chat bot would raise ­users’ awareness of their rights, thus making consumers more legally literal. All in all, this ICT service would assure stronger participation and inclusiveness of individuals experiencing violations of their rights that otherwise would have been neglected. Other small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP and Kolba Lab in ­A rmenia include anti-corruption projects, open data/data visualization projects, ­e-services providing projects and other low-tech projects. Another form of boosting social innovation in Armenia was ‘Mardamej’ Social Innovation Camp sponsored by the Eurasian Partnership Foundation (EPF).17 The EPF has been holding Mardamej SICs since 2014 and has so far supported around 35 projects in the areas of Local Government, Human Rights, Social Services and Anti-corruption as a part of Media for Informed Civic Engagement (MICE) and Civic Engagement in Local Governance (CELoG) Projects.18

Background  9

1.1.3  Eastern Europe In Ukraine, the UNDP supported SIPs in local governments and ­communities through national hackathons19 and municipal innovation labs. SocialBoost, a major supporting organization, co-managed 21 small-scale SIPs jointly with the UNDP. Launched in 2012 by a group of volunteers, SocialBoost was later funded by various donors (including the UNDP) in Ukraine. It has undertaken numerous socially significant projects involving ICT solutions in partnership with international donors, global corporations and partners. Besides SocialBoost, two CSOs – Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration Services Project (TAPAS Project) and Eidos – fostered cooperation between governments and citizens. Funded by Eurasia Foundation and other donors, TAPAS promotes greater transparency and accountability in governance, as well as reforms in public administration. TAPAS closely cooperated with SocialBoost on the projects where open data was used. Through the competition called Open Data Challenge, TAPAS and SocialBoost supported small-scale projects on open data visualization and projects on anti-corruption and e-services. Eidos is a Ukraine-based CSO that provides analysis and assistance in the reforming of the public funds’ domain. It has partnered with the UNDP and other donors in designing projects aimed at fighting corruption, raising civic and political awareness and promoting local democracy in Ukraine. In Ivano-Frankivsk, an SIP ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ was developed with the support of the UNDP as a mobile application allowing citizens to check the administrative procedures of service providers and report corruption cases. Employing ICT, specifically as a mobile application, allowed tackling the issue of low-quality public services and combat corruption by involving citizens in monitoring public services. Other small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP and SocialBoost in Ukraine included anti-corruption projects, open data/data visualization, e-services providing projects, security (especially in active war zones) and public administration (usually low-tech). Besides local Ukrainian organizations dealing with SIPs, ‘Close to You Foundation (ADV)’, a Romanian CSO, in 2019 has launched a “EU4Youth – Social Innovation Impact – a strategic partnership” Project20 funded by the European Commission. The project was aimed at supporting youth s­ocial entrepreneurship in Moldova and Ukraine to ensure better employment ­opportunities, social cohesion, inclusion and less inequality. In Moldova, the EU is also funding the ‘Cross-Border Partnership for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship’ Project21 in the framework of the Joint Operational Program Romania-Moldova, through the European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI). The project’s goal is to support education, research, technology, development and innovation. Another source of social innovation development is the Moldova Innovation Lab (MiLab). The UNDP is running MiLab that is combining the experiences

10 Background

of Moldova Social Innovation and Business Innovation Labs. MiLab is designed as a think-tank and experimental platform to ­ support ­ innovations within UNDP Moldova in the government and the private ­sector and in collaboration with external partners.22 MiLab conducted ­numerous behavioral experiments. For instance, consultations and services for the ­unemployed were redesigned in 14 Territorial Employment Centers to increase the likelihood of job transition to the job market. Another project was aimed at collecting micro-narratives on the quality of life in Chisinau and opening up a dialogue with the local administration around citizens’ engagement.23

1.2 Conceptual problem of post-Soviet social innovations The conceptual development and theorization as well as application of the definition of ‘social innovation’ remain one of the major theoretical and ­empirical challenges for social innovations in various sectors. In fact, as Marques et al. (2018) suggested “the social innovation concept has been most effective as a concept in practice” (p. 506). As a research concept, nonetheless, it suffers from the over-theorization from the multiple criteria and dimensions attached to it, somewhat diluting the term. This proved to be also true for post-Soviet SIPs. Although a huge amount of scholarly and policy-oriented literature on ­social innovations in developed and developing countries has been produced ­( Buchegger & Ornetzender, 2000; Gerometta, 2005; Hochgerner, 2011; Evers & Ewert, 2012; Bhatt, 2013; Barraket et al., 2015; Howaldt, 2015a,b; Ionescu, 2015; Oosterlynck et al., 2015; Bassi, 2016; Domanski, 2017; Marques et al., 2018; Howaldt et al., 2018), scholarly research analyzing SIPs in p­ ost-Soviet countries has hardly ever been conducted. So far, scholarly research on s­ocial innovations in developed countries has been focused, for instance, on the i­ssues of social innovations in relevance to sustainable development (Buchegger & Ornetzender, 2000), healthcare (Barraket et al., 2015), improvement of the welfare system (Evers & Ewert, 2012), as well as on the theoretical and conceptual application of social innovation (Domanski, 2017; Howaldt et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2018;). In developing countries, the most recent studies included, for example, those focused on social innovations in peace-building in Colom­ evelopment bia (Moreno, 2017), or social innovations to achieve Sustainable D Goals (SDGs) in India (Santha, 2019). Hence, the scholarly analysis of social innovation is incomplete without full consideration of the peculiarities that have informed the concept in the post-Soviet context.

1.3  Significance of the study This book is significant for several reasons. First, though the topic of social innovations is already receiving sufficient scholarly attention, post-Soviet countries remain largely uncovered by such a research. This book addresses

Background  11

this gap by specifically focusing on post-Soviet social innovations. It ­focuses on SIPs purposefully implemented by governments, international donors and CSOs in post-Soviet countries. It also explicitly addresses social innovations that emerged there in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the virus outbreak, their genuine goal was attending to the social needs of people and addressing the breaches in the state healthcare and social care services. As such, they were grassroot, sustainable and focused on the needs not addressed by the existing state healthcare and social care nets, and are therefore likely to manifest an emergence of a new set of social actions and as Moulaert et al. (2014) calls it an “innovation in social relations” (p. 3). Second, the application of SIPs in development work is a novel ­approach of the international donors (e.g., UNDP, UNICEF, USAID) to development assistance in post-Soviet developing countries. In that sense, the current book is also the primary attempt to research the international ­donor-supported SIPs. The different approach to the delivery of development assistance by employing SIPs is a barely explored area per se, which also makes the current book a truly original one. Since social innovations are being introduced into development studies and development work, the current research could also contribute to this area of study and highlight yet undiscovered aspects related to social innovations in developing countries (and/or countries in transition). While the literature on social innovations (Mulgan, 2007; Sørensen and Torfing, 2012; Domanski, 2017; Howaldt et  al., 2018) suggests that social innovation emerges in civil, private and public sectors and may be led by CSOs, social enterprises, private and/or government entities and even academic institutions, SIPs in post-Soviet countries constitute a totally different type of social innovations, supported by international donors. Though Domaski (2017) claimed that “liberation of social innovation from the silo of the third sector and opening it up to other areas of the society already happened” (p. 21), and Moulaert et al. (2014) suggests that “social innovation holds a needs satisfaction feature” (p. 3), research of social innovations from the perspective of international development organization has not been yet conducted. Finally, the book discusses the evolution and particular features of SIPs in post-Soviet settings and evaluates how these projects fared as social innovations.

1.4 Argument I put forward a five-part argument. First, as post-Soviet countries have ­inherited from the Soviet era an omnipresent government with a strong domination over all sectors of society, it was necessary for international donors, public and private organizations, and CSOs to cooperate with governments in order to achieve their goals or to deliver development assistance. For instance, to win over government cooperation and support, international donors (e.g.,

12 Background

UNDP, USAID, UNICEF, EU) purposely framed the development projects in post-Soviet countries as SIPs. They deemed the social innovation concept to be novel, appealing and not too political. ‘Good governance’ or ‘democratic governance’, as conceptualized and promoted by Western development agencies, was too sensitive issue for post-Soviet governments. Thus, the international donors chose to run SIPs in governance, social services, social entrepreneurship, health care, activism, volunteerism, seemingly providing not much more than technical assistance to local communities and governments. CSOs considered SIPs as a tool allowing the generation of new ideas for their activities, distinct from the projects CSOs used to run in the past. Thus, SIPs have been aimed for greater inclusion, more participation and responsiveness through the extensive use of ICT, open data, as well as locally designed engineering works. Moreover, a strong emphasis was put on the social impact of these post-Soviet social innovations, particularly in terms of the identification and satisfaction of needs and the creation of new social relationships. While largely meeting the usual criteria of social innovations, in post-Soviet countries they bear specific characteristics. Second, scholars who have conducted studies on social innovations have studied projects that succeeded or failed to become social innovations, and they have applied the term social innovation to projects deemed to have reached a superior level of achievement only after the fact, i.e. post factum. In post-­ Soviet countries, ­social innovation is regarded as something that can be aspired and worked for and refers to newly started projects as social innovations before they have been completed. Therefore, in this study, I argue that differently from the post factum application of the term in other countries, social innovation in post-Soviet countries is seen as something that can be volitional. Since international d­ onors and local governmental and non-governmental organizations referred to newly started projects as ‘social innovations’, this characteristic, in post-Soviet countries, turned all the common features of social innovation volitional. In this regard, SIPs mainly met six common criteria of social i­nnovation, namely newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness and focus on a specific domain, use of ICTs and the social impact in form of identification and satisfaction of needs, but were still progressing towards meeting two remaining criteria, namely scaling up and making a social change. Third, distinctly from social innovations in developed countries, SIPs in post-Soviet countries have been of a particular developmental type due largely to the international donor organization’s role in pushing them. They are ­developmental in the sense that they have been developed to help local communities and governments in a developmental (or transitional) context to find solutions to existing social problems. They strive for the delivery of better economic opportunities and social services, and for improving the capabilities, as Sen (1999) puts it, of individuals. Fourth, social innovations in post-Soviet countries have seen both achievements and setbacks. Thus, apart from being volitional and developmental,

Background  13

and differently from the other cases where social ­i nnovations were ­nurtured by the non-governmental sector, ‘social innovations’ in the post-Soviet states exhibit a vital importance of government’s role, as only projects with at least some level of government support have made significant gains. ­However, active civil society participation and the development of local leaders and ‘policy entrepreneurs’ have played a major role in the advances made by SIPs, for instance, in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. It is too early to assess whether social innovations in post-Soviet countries will meet two other criteria of social innovation – scaling-up and social ­change – but some projects do show encouraging signs of eventually moving up to these levels. The same holds true for the aspiration of the projects to be truly developmental in the actual result. Moreover, although the ­social innovation concept is being introduced into development studies and development work, it has been yet insufficiently researched in the development context. Finally, as used in post-Soviet states, the term social innovation appears to be at risk of losing its meaning and potency. On top of sometimes insufficient attention to certain social innovation criteria, in the course of implementation of SIPs, the term has been often intermixed by local partners with such other terms as ‘social projects’, ‘civic engagements’, ‘civic technology’ and others, which leads to the devaluation of the social innovation concept.

1.5  Methodology and methods of research At the outset of my study, a critical review of the scholarly literature discussing different features of social innovations from different theoretical perspectives has been conducted. The literature on social innovations methodologically approaches the analysis of social innovations features in two different ways. One approach is to look for differences among social innovations features and discuss what makes them particular in a certain social context. Certainly, any social innovation is contextual, as many scholars point out in their studies (Asadova, 2013; Oosterlynck et al., 2015; Moreno, 2017; Domanski, 2017; Santha, 2019). However, this approach is not helpful for either understanding or explaining the features shared by all social innovations. Though it demonstrates contextual peculiarities of social innovations, it does not tell what features they share, and subsequently, what makes all of them social innovations. Therefore, other scholars (Buchegger & Ornetzender, 2000; Mumford and Moertl, 2003; Mulgan, 2007; Evers & Ewert, 2012; Krlev et al., 2014; Moulaert et al., 2014, Marques et al., 2018; Howaldt et al., 2018, 2020) took another approach trying to figure out the features that are common to all social innovations. This approach is helpful in conceptualizing social innovation, and, while ­acknowledging existing differences, that was the approach I have opted to apply while conducting a literature review.

14 Background

1.6  Social innovations criteria 1.6.1  Newness of social innovation Newness of social innovations has been emphasized and discussed by ­d ifferent scholars and theories. Obviously, since the focus is on social innovations, it is evident and fairly expected that this phenomenon should bring something new into the existing social context. According to Oosterlynck et al. (2015), social innovation can only be ­understood contextually, and its newness is a characteristic not to the phenomenon itself, but of its relationship to a certain institutional context. Hochgerner (2012) mentions the following perspective: The substantive distinction between social and technical innovations can be found in their immaterial intangible structure. Social innovation is not substantialized as technical artefacts but occurs at the level of social practice. A social innovation is a new combination and/or new configuration of social practices in certain areas of action or social contexts prompted by certain actors or constellations of actors in an intentional, targeted manner with the goal of better satisfying or answering needs and problems than is possible on the basis of established practices. An ­innovation is therefore social to the extent that it, conveyed by the market or non/without profit, is socially accepted and diffused widely throughout society or in certain societal sub-areas, transformed depending on ­circumstances and ultimately institutionalized as new social p­ ractice or made routine. (p. 7) For social practice theory invention is a central element for social development (Howaldt et al., 2014), but imitation/repetition is the central mechanism of social reproduction and social change and social innovation. Mulgan’s ‘connected difference’ approach emphasized three key dimensions of social innovations: (1) they are usually new combinations or hybrids of ­existing elements, rather than being wholly new in themselves; (2) putting them into practice involves cutting across organizational, sectoral or disciplinary boundaries; (3) they leave behind new relationships between previously separate individuals and groups. These new relationships, which matter greatly to the people involved, contribute to the diffusion and e­ mbedding of the innovation. Also, they fuel a cumulative dynamic whereby each i­nnovation opens up the possibility of further innovations. 1.6.2  People-centeredness and inclusiveness of social innovation People (human)-centric and inclusive approach in social innovations has a spectrum of three major areas: first, individuals are agents of change themselves,

Background  15

since people (human)-centric approach allows them to identify and address a particular social problem themselves; second, individuals designing solutions for the problems are themselves benefiting from these solutions, meaning, for instance, that they design social innovations to resolve issues in the communities they belong to; and third is that people (human)-centric social innovations allow better inclusion of previously neglected individuals and social groups. More elaboration on these areas is given below. 1.6.2.1  Individuals as the agents of change The primary feature identified while analyzing social innovations is their ­human (people)-centeredness. For example, the SI-Drive project that mapped 1,005 social innovations globally, in the case of South Africa, as Howaldt et al. (2018) found though social innovations did not disregard the importance of collaboration with government, private sector, NGOs, universities, they nevertheless prioritized the role of individuals, be they public servants, civil society activists or end-users of services. Institutions could support this journey but needed to put the citizens and their needs at the center. (p. 76) Mulgan and Murray (2010) in their analysis of the social innovation generation process pointed out that the new solution should be prompted, later prototyped and piloted/tested by the individuals experiencing a social problem. This is how social innovation achieves its social goal. Hochgerner (2012) and Howaldt et al. (2014) mention invention as the starting point for social innovation, if an invented idea is imitated and turned into the social practice. The invention, in this regard, is something initiated by the individuals experiencing the problem, and wishing to solve it. Santha (2019) in his article suggested ­“people-centered and context-specific systemic social innovation approaches as possible pathways to achieve the SDGs” (p. 9). He thought that focusing solely on economic entrepreneurship while generating social innovations disregards social and e­ nvironmental aspects required for sustainable development (Santha, 2019). Human (people)-centered social innovation is a rewarding approach, effective in designing social innovations for those who really need them. Despite the commonly agreed people (human)-centeredness of social innovations, recent literature suggests looking at this feature beyond just individualistic prism. For instance, the World Bank’s Report on social innovations in Colombia emphasizes that social innovations should be co-designed with communities they intend to help (World Bank, 2017). This approach suggests that broader participation of the community, and not just selected i­ ndividuals, should be assured while planning social innovations. In that sense, social ­innovations are, indeed, people-centered, meaning that even if designed by particular individuals, they affect communities from which these individuals

16 Background

come. Thus, social innovations are not only designed by individuals and communities but also have a target effect on them. 1.6.2.2  Individuals and communities as the targeted beneficiaries In Seoul, South Korea, the people-centered design of social innovations was considered the most useful approach to public sector innovations. Howaldt et al.’s (2018) findings from South Korea demonstrated that by doing so [applying people-centered approach], one-sided public welfare services were switched to more interactive ones in which people could live their everyday lives with a stronger sharing spirit and sustainable city environment, and these innovative policies ultimately could be disseminated into basic administrative units. (p. 158) Cases of human-centered design of social innovations demonstrate that ideas/inventions/projects addressing needs should be planned and driven by ­individuals experiencing the problem which they intend to tackle. ­Solutions focused on those individuals would allow finding and applying the best ­option relevant to the people (users). These solutions can be generated based on human-centered principle, in any area of action. However, just people (human)-centric design of social innovations is not sufficient. As Santha (2019) mentioned, social innovations ­besides being people-centric should also be “context specific and systemic” ­ (p. 9); o ­ therwise they cannot satisfy the social needs of individuals and ­communities. Moreover, ‘one size fits all’ social innovations drawn from the ­neo-liberal paradigm are not able to achieve sustainable development goals focused on social and environmental issues (Santha, 2019), beyond economic entrepreneurship. In this regard, applying more inclusive mechanisms encompassing the social needs of previously diminished groups is a prerequisite of social innovation. 1.6.2.3  Inclusion of previously neglected individuals and groups In South Asian countries, Howaldt et al. (2018) identified that p­ eople-centered social innovation programs were designed to address the needs of marginalized groups. Howaldt et al. (2018) assumed that: The future vision for social innovation in the region in ‘people c­ entric social innovation’, which is transformative in its approach and aims to address societal needs by centering on the concerns of marginalized people, their context and strategies to address them. Thus, grassroots innovations that led bottom-up solutions for sustainable development ­responding to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities

Background  17

involved was the other key direction for future responses within people centric social innovation. (p. 160) However, for assuring that a people-centered approach leads to more inclusion, specific problematic areas should have been identified, so as the social groups (individuals) suffering the most due to the existing problems and left behind the existing policy programs. Otherwise, people-centeredness would be lacking its focused consideration of area-specific problems. For example, Barraket et al. (2015) specifically focused on social innovation for health equity promotion. Barraket et al. (2015) pointed out that “the greatest concentration of research on social innovation activity at the individual and daily living conditions levels of the health equity system that highlights contextual nature of social innovations addressing the needs of geographic communities and/or particular social groups” (p. 52). Barraket et al. (2015) stand for people-centered program design when it concerns social innovations in the health sector, which positions the individual in the core of health policies and programs and makes these programs more inclusive. It was also pointed out that besides the people-centered approach, social relationships should be valued as changing attitudes and behaviors of different groups. This will further affect institutional changes and subsequently living conditions of individuals. Asenova and Damianova discussed social innovations in the p­ ost-communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. In their contribution to the SIDrive project, they argued that social innovations in these countries are the result of the efforts of the third sector and social entrepreneurs mainly occurring as response to pressing societal challenges not addressed by public policies. Social ­innovation initiatives are mostly successful in the field of providing social services (mainly to vulnerable groups and Roma minorities), education and employment opportunities. (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 35) Marques et al. (2018) also emphasized that inclusiveness is one of the elements of social innovations. However, according to Marques et al. (2018), inclusiveness per se does not distinguish social innovation from other phenomena, for instance any development or political projects. Therefore, new social relationships should occur in the process of generation of social innovations. Thus, networking and collaboration among different actors should happen. 1.6.3  Networking and collaboration Networking and collaboration of different actors to generate and spread social innovations is a requirement for them to succeed. Many cases of researched social innovations suggest that established collaboration and well-developed

18 Background

networks contributed to the generation of social innovations. For instance, based on the findings of Howaldt et al.’s (2018) experiences from the social innovations in the Basque area, networking aspects have been particularly considered. Howaldt et al. (2018) argued that “the public-private alliances to support social innovations at different levels have been achieved (…). Social innovation spaces (networking and consortiums) to promote collective and open innovations in smart strategies to solve social problems have been created” (p. 116). Another perspective on networking is not through a public-private partnership but through a built ecosystem. For instance, in Italy, according to Howaldt et al. (2018), it was found that the key role of communities, networks, and spaces, such as co-working spaces, living labs, or incubators, that are an essential part of the overall ecosystem, and support social innovation by experimenting and fostering new forms of knowledge sharing, socialization, and cross-sector collaboration and contamination was emphasized. (p. 113) Certainly, social innovation is not a phenomenon emerging in a single sector. Experiences from the UK tell us that partnerships and more collaboration should be promoted across the sectors and actors to embed social innovations broadly and take social innovations out of solely social enterprises business. Moreover, networking as an alliance between public and private sectors, or the result of a developed ecosystem allowing social innovations to be generated across different sectors, does not work if networking policies are not strategic. Having said that, Howaldt et al. (2018) mentioned strategic networking policies to foster social innovations in Europe: There is a strong need for a mechanism to foster partnerships and peerto-peer support. Through partnerships, accelerators can provide better curriculum, connections, and expertise on specific dynamics. Foster collaboration amongst impact enterprises, starting a business to address these issues involves common growth challenges, which all impact enterprises face. The strength of the network lies in sharing, learning and scaling for the benefit of innovators. (p. 98) In other words, peer-to-peer support of different enterprises might be a­ nother way of nurturing social innovations. But being more business oriented, peerto-peer support does not cover non-business sectors. Also, it disregards the possibility of collaboration between enterprises and other government and non-government actors. For instance, Barraket et al. (2015) emphasized that the “greater collaboration across health and non-health sectors and ­between

Background  19

civil society, government and the private sector should be mobilized in support of health equity promotion” (p. 59). Theoretically speaking, Mulgan et al. (2010) and Howaldt et al. (2014) while discussing the role of ‘connectors’ or constellation of different actors in the generation of social innovation specifically emphasized their (actors) input in social innovation. Yet, Sørensen and Torfing (2012) went beyond collaboration between different actors/sectors for social innovation. Sørensen and Torfing (2012) pointed out “how public sector leaders and managers can advocate for collaborative innovations, that would require the change and transformation of the entire system from public management to public governance” (p. 147). Indeed, as Domanski (2017) indicated “social innovation cannot be limited to one focus, be it social entrepreneurship or social economy, (…) widening the perspective is crucial for understanding social innovation” (p. 21). 1.6.3.1 Networking and cooperation between the government and CSOs (or community leaders) The government was an active actor dealing with social innovations in d­ eveloping and post-communist countries. However, this is also true for ­developed countries, where the government also tries to apply social innovations to address the gaps in government-dominated systems (welfare, health care, etc.). In practice, without cooperation with the government and government’s support, in developing countries social innovations were difficult to generate. In developed countries, social innovations occurred outside of the government (or public) sector, and were, in fact, later spilled over to this sector from the non-governmental sector. Hence, in Nordic countries, the approach to social innovations was ­specific. As Howaldt et al. (2018) found, the so-called Nordic framework for social innovation “serves to reconcile the standing of a strong state with i­ ndividuals that take active part in fulfilling their needs, commonly benefitting from initiatives originating outside the realm of mainstream institutions” (p. 108). In developed countries, social innovations were usually considered as possible solutions to problems that have not or could not be addressed by the existing social nets and welfare systems. This is how social innovations generated outside of the mainstream government institutions later transferred to these i­nstitutions and were applied to address existing gaps in the delivery of ­required social services. Thus, this is where the cooperation between government and non-government actors occurs. In developing countries, cooperation occurred differently. For instance, in the case of Chile, Damanski and Monge-Iriarte emphasize the pioneering ­ hilean role of the public sector and Chilean governmental entities, e.g. the C Economic Development Agency (CORFO) in the promotion of social ­innovations (Howaldt et al., 2018). In practice, social innovations without

20 Background

g­ overnment support were lacking sustainability. The case of Turkey is a vivid example of this fact. In the case of Turkey discussed by Ecer and Dalagic, social innovations are described as not sustainable due to the lacking fundraising possibilities for them. Ecer and Dalagic informed that “in Turkey social innovations are mostly funded by the government or private sector” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 124). Ecer and Dalagic pointed out the “increasing role of the government in social innovation projects such as employment and poverty reduction” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 46). The government supported social innovations in the domains where social problems should be resolved. Otherwise, leaders implementing social innovations had to raise funds themselves, which was, for instance, problematic in Turkey. Basically, social innovations have had better chances to be implemented if they were aimed at the social goals set by the government. In reality, this means that without the government’s strategic support, social innovations in developing countries had a risk of failure. The difference was, however, in government’s application of social innovations to its policies. Different from Turkey, where social innovations were supported in strategic areas prioritized by the government, in China social innovations were supported and coordinated more systematically. China is an example of government’s extensive participation in the coordination and support of social innovations. According to Howaldt et al. (2018): Social innovation has been promoted as a national development strategy in China since the mid 2010s. New ideas, models of organizational ­behavior, schedules and policy programs have been tested for social innovation. These ideas support social innovative practices in different ways and thus support their development despite a number of social challenges. (p. 118) Nevertheless, it was still unclear whether projects supported by governments were true social innovations. For instance, in Russia, projects supported by the government, private sector, NGOs and individuals have been mapped and labeled as ‘social innovation’, though whether they were, in fact, social innovations has not been supported by any evidence. However, as Il’in et al. stated “being a new phenomenon for Russia, they [SIPs] remained mostly government-led in the areas where the government considered them important” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 126). These projects in Russia were very focused on concrete domains such as social care, education, inequality reduction, employment and ecology. For all of them, lack of government support and financial resources is a major challenge (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 127). Putting aside already identified challenges that social innovations encountered falling short of government’s support, let us look at how

Background  21

collaboration with the government happened to find out that the government cooperated with CSOs and local community leaders. For instance, in Southeast Asia, according to the UNDP Social Innovation for Public Service Excellence Report for the Philippines “the Enchanted Farm is a unique combination of model farm, village, university and social business incubator. It is the 1st of 24 sites Gawad Kalinga plan to build around the Philippines” (UNDP, 2014, p. 20). In Malaysia, according to the UNDP (2014), “Cure & Care Centers Partnership between a public agency and social innovation advisers have been promoting anti-drug policy of the government of Malaysia to prevent crime or associated with drugs spread of HIV/AIDs” (p. 21). The aforementioned examples of social innovations demonstrate that in developing countries successful social innovations could emerge from the cooperation between the public and civic sectors (or individual social innovators). In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, Bernal and Cecchini also emphasized the role of community leaders seeking cooperation with local administrations, professional and CSOs (Howaldt et al., 2018). Networking was something even more important, certainly more applicable and workable in Latin America. Interpersonal relationships, networks between universities and international networks in Brazil according to Howaldt et  al. (2018) help to develop social innovations. In the case of Columbia, Bekkers (2013) emphasized a slightly different perspective. He stresses the input of community-based social innovations that contribute to the peace and prosperity of the country. Moreno (2017) in the World Bank research in Colombia ­emphasized that “international donors and the state have to co-design ­socially innovative solutions with the communities they are seeking to help” (p. 9). This is a clear signal for cooperation with communities to generate social innovation. The examples above indicate that social innovations in developing countries were initiated by community leaders in cooperation with governments, CSOs, through networks and interpersonal relationships. This also confirms the findings of Domanski (2017), who argues that social innovations should not be any longer regarded as something generated by the third (civil society sector), but has to be considered as the phenomenon spreading across different sectors (e.g., government, civil society, academia). The experiences from developing and post-communist countries, in fact, suggest that social innovations were generated as a result of ­cooperation ­between the government and CSOs (or community leaders). It was also found that while in developed countries social innovations could be generated ­independently from the government (sometimes by social enterprises or social entrepreneurs), they could be later supported by the government, and/ or used in the public sector. In developing and post-communist countries, to the contrary, social innovations could hardly be generated without prior approval by government entities.

22 Background

In fact, the level of government involvement in the support of ­social i­nnovations was different in developing and developed countries. For developing countries, government support was simultaneously a blessing ­ and a challenge, because given relatively underdeveloped fundraising mechanisms, limited access to institutional capacities of organizations, and weak society, the government remains sometimes the only actor capable civil ­ of supporting social innovations. At the same time, excessive government ­involvement bears the risk of not allowing other actors to develop and engage with social innovations. Therefore, as Howaldt et al. (2018) suggest: Policymaking needs to refrain from seeking dominance for its own sake. The lesson rather is that policy should strive to support generally favorable conditions for citizen engagement and step in to support the uptake of social innovation when that is clearly helpful for realizing the benefits. In other cases, policy should let social innovation run its course as a force capable of responding to, and filling, the gaps. (p. 110) Ideally, the government should contribute to the development of the i­nnovation ecosystem, allowing a greater number of actors to collaborate and prioritize society’s needs to be tackled. This would not damage government-supported social innovations but would rather create more opportunities and greater diversity. What reviewed examples also tell us is that networking and collaboration among different actors/sectors have been vital for the success of social innovations. These social relationships have been helpful in solving social problems, especially in the areas where government alone could not properly address a pressing social issue. A well-developed social innovation ecosystem encompassing various actors and spreading social innovation across several sectors has the potential to address unmet social needs. Reviewed cases confirm this and demonstrate that cooperation with the government was established to support social innovations. 1.6.4  Localness and focus on a specific domain Any social innovation starts locally, and later might be considered for diffusion across the society. Scholars encompass numerous examples of academic ­research in local communities and governments in developed countries, where social innovations have been generated. For instance, Evers & Ewert (2012) analyzed 79 cases of SIPs in different local communities and cities in Europe. They specifically looked at local social cohesion for social innovation and could point out similarities and differences of the locality of social effects from social innovation. They found that local social cohesion and social innovation are contributing to the emergence of a new local welfare system in Europe, addressing the gaps in the welfare system overlooked by the government.

Background  23

They researched local social cohesion for social innovation but overlooked the ­connection ­between social innovation and local welfare state policy. Oosterlynck et al. (2015) addressed this gap and contributed to Evers & Ewert’s (2012) research by analyzing the “connection between social innovation and micro-level welfare state policy” (p. 4). Oosterlynck et al. (2015) specifically looked at “how local social innovations organize social interventions differently from conventional welfare state policies and social investment strategies” (p. 5). Generation and application of local social innovations is a new topic emerging in European social policies. Local social innovations are being able to address the gaps in local welfare systems, not accurately ­addressed by the government. If successful, local social innovations are spread across the welfare system. In developed countries, they serve the role of new approaches, practices and methods to address welfare problems. In developing and post-communist countries, social innovations were specifically launched to address social needs, or in order to address certain challenges locally (Howaldt et al., 2018), rather than being aimed at macro-level systemic/social changes. Recent findings of the SI-Drive project also demonstrated that social innovations in developing and post-communist countries occurred in various specific domains. For instance, Bernal and Cecchini mention ‘Lots of Milk’ project in Haiti that was designed with the participation of local communities, and micro milk producers (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 48). In Brazil, SIPs were built around the city of Rio de Janeiro. These initiatives were mostly based on interpersonal face-to-face relationships and encounters, i.e. the kind that occurred in small groups, on a small, local scale. To recall, due to the government support in numerous developing countries, social innovations happened in government priority domains. They all have been launched locally, too. For example, in Turkey and Chile, social innovations were designed to be implemented in the domains prioritized by the government. Those projects were led by the government (or public) institutions locally. For instance, in Turkey, it is the ‘Karavan-Basin’ rural development project, while in Chile the Chilean Economic Development Agency has supported initiatives of social entrepreneurs. In China, based on the Chinese strategic program supporting social innovations in the public sector, they have been led and coordinated by the government on the local level. For instance, according to Howaldt et al. (2018), models of social management such as “Nanjing, empower local residential committees, Yantian and Shenzhen cities focused on separation of the residential communities and government agencies on the local level” (p. 58). In the context of domain-specific application of social innovations, it should be noted that in different countries they have occurred in different areas. Area-wise, in post-communist countries of Eastern Europe, social ­innovations mainly occurred in the field of education, environment, transport and energy. In the Middle East and North Africa, social innovations have been mostly focused on poverty eradication, sustainable development and education. In Arab countries, social innovations have occurred in the

24 Background

fields of empowerment and knowledge development (Howaldt et al., 2018). The rationale behind being this area-specificity was to design local social innovations to address particular needs and issues which from country to country were laying in different domains. Reviewed cases clearly demonstrate that social innovations have been launched as local initiatives aimed at specific domains. In developing and post-communist countries, when governments actually used social innovations in their priority areas, they were doing so in an attempt to tackle pressing social and economic issues such as unemployment and poor healthcare. The experiences from developing and post-communist countries have also demonstrated that social innovations were aimed at specific domains (education, healthcare, governance, etc.). It was already mentioned that in developing countries areas prioritized by the governments, by default, have had a specific focus on solutions to certain developmental problems. Social innovations initiated by NGOs/NPOs/ individuals (social innovators or social entrepreneurs) have been also addressing specific social challenges in certain areas. In this regard, the use of technologies, and in particular employing ICTs, was very helpful for assuring transparency, crowdsourcing of ideas, and better citizens’ participation in finding solutions to existing social issues. 1.6.5  Use of technology Though it is not a strict prerequisite, the use of technology or digitalization of social innovation has widely spread across different countries. Indeed, ­social innovations can be either low-tech or high-tech. The difference is that in developed countries high-tech social innovations help to transform services in various areas (e.g., welfare system, health care) into more convenient, cost-effective and expeditious. In developing and post-communist countries, in addition to this, ICTs also help to assure enhanced transparency, inclusion and participation of citizens in designing solutions to social problems. For instance, in Brazil, according to Cipolla and Alfonso’s contribution to the SI-Drive project, “many social innovation initiatives rely on the use of ICT. These technologies prove to be useful for creating new communicative patterns in the city and promote new connections between slums and the outside areas (e.g., Papo Reto)” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 37). These examples, however, lack one important aspect related to the ICTs in social innovations. The fact is that ICTs might be used for social innovations with different implications, i.e. it can both improve an existing social innovation and even create a new one. According to Millard (2014), ICTs are usually used for two major purposes: First ICT is used to ‘support’ existing social innovations, or existing types of social innovation, which are significantly improved by deploying ICT. For example, ICT can support unemployed people to find employers or others needing work or tasks much faster and more accurately than

Background  25

traditional approaches. Second, ICT is used to ‘enable’ social innovations that would otherwise not happen, and this may sometimes even lead to completely new types of social innovation. For example, ICT is creating completely new social, business and governance models and value chains without unnecessary middlemen and which empower the individual looking for employment. (p. 7) According to Millard (2014), “ICT can both support and enable social innovation” (p. 7). For instance, by using ICT an unemployed person can faster and easily find a job, or an ICT can power new models of providing employment. The ICT component in post-communist countries was used to provide new services that are handier and more convenient for users. For instance, in Bulgaria, Jumpido is an educational software for primary school students that offers a new methodology of learning mathematics through a set of educational games and at the same time encourages children to engage in sports activities (Howaldt et al., 2018). ICTs help to address social issues in developing and post-communist countries in a different, more inclusive manner, that is also empowering individuals. The use of technology might create different modes of technology and practice combination. The ultimate goal of using technology in social innovations might differ, too. As an example, ICTs are very often used to fight corruption or assure transparency and participation. In this regard, Bruck and Roth (2013) reviewed innovative projects submitted to the UN in 2012, “to fight poverty, hunger, disease, inequality, lack of education and environmental degradation with the use of ICT” (p. 268). Indeed, there is no surprise that the use of ICTs in different countries is common, though the rationale behind the use of ICTs can be different. In developed countries, ICTs assure greater convenience, accuracy and expeditiousness of the services, while in developing countries, ICTs also serve the purpose of inclusion and transparency. 1.6.6  Making social impact Clearly, social impact is something any social innovation is aimed for, be it the solution of a local social problem or social/systemic change in the society. Based on this, social impact has different scopes and scales. In this regard, it is important what is being implied under the notion of “social impact” in various social settings. For instance, while analyzing social innovations in developing countries (e.g., Uganda and India) and developed countries (e.g., USA and UK), Asadova (2013) argued that the difference of social impact in developed and developing countries’ social settings is “in the nature of social innovation, which in case of developed countries characterized by the scarce government resources for certain type of social issues which spurs social innovation” (p. 54). In developing countries, according to Asadova, “the impact of social innovations is in their ability to meet social needs” (p. 55). Buchegger & Ornetzender

26 Background

(2000) also suggested that “within the last years, social innovations were seen as a solution for many social problems” (p. 2). What is still debatable, in this context, is how social impact should be assessed? Practically, there are no scholarly agreed measurement tools for social impact from social innovations. Scholars have so far proposed different assessment mechanisms of social impact and largely disagree about its evaluation instruments. For instance, Chowdhury (2010) in his study evaluated success or failure of social impact based upon success or failure in transferring elements of locally generated social innovations that enable problem solutions to other organizations. In other words, if locally designed social innovations have been scaled up successfully and solved as many social problems as possible, then it is possible to claim social impact from those social innovations. Another example is from Latin America and the Caribbean where according to Bernal and Cecchini’s contribution to SI-Drive project, “the major goal of social innovations was to improve the living conditions of people, rather than innovate” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 128). To put it differently, in Latin America, addressing social challenges was more important than ‘newness’ of the solution to those social problems. This is a vivid case of the emphasis on social impact as the improvement of living conditions of individuals rather than concentration on the means this social goal is being achieved by. Meanwhile, different methods are being discussed and applied to measure the social impact of social innovation. The UNDP and inFocus, a social ­impact measurement consultancy firm, came up with seven steps to measure social impact, but this approach was more focused on measuring the impact of the UNDP development projects (UNDP, 2017), and not social innovations. One more example of social impact measurement challenge is from Italy, where Howaldt et al. (2018) found that the growing dynamism of social innovation is fostering awareness on the need to understand and evaluate the social impact produced by these new solutions. Social impact assessment has never been very widespread in the country, and this has been a weakness for all those organizations that, working for a social objective, are unable to demonstrate their impact. (p. 59) Barraket et al. (2015) also pointed out the lacking evidence of the impact from social innovations in developing and developed countries, which also affects the diffusion of social innovation. Barraket et al. (2015) suggested that traditionally evaluation of the impact was based on case studies “with virtually no meta-evaluative evidence available, and very little comparative analysis across intervention types” (p. 58). Essentially, experiences from social innovations demonstrated that the measurement of the impact of social innovation is a complicated task that entails measurement dimensions, criteria and data to conduct an adequate assessment. To demonstrate the impact from social innovation, a relevant

Background  27

methodological tool should be at the researchers’ disposal. One of the tools used by the NESTA is known as NESTA standards of evidence (Puttick, 2013). It provides qualitative standards allowing for the assessment of s­ocial innovations impact. In fact, according to Osburg (2013), “several social ­impact measurement tools have been created and developed in the few decades” (p. 13); however, Bassi (2016) argues that scholars are still at the initial stage of analysis and elaboration of tools for the measurement of social impact made by organizations implementing social innovations. It is obvious that the problem of social impact assessment reveals the need to move forward with the development of comprehensive methodology and methods of such assessment, and subsequently of a reliable social innovation evaluation tool. It is true that peculiarities of social contexts frame social impact from social innovations and also make any social innovation new in relationship to this context (Oosterlynck et al., 2015). In a normative sense, in any social context, social innovation should tackle a social issue that needs to be solved, and the solution of it constitutes social innovation’s social impact. 1.6.7  Scaling up To replicate the socially innovative solution that addressed a particular local social problem, scaling up opportunities should be available. In this context, it was found that though it was required, scaling up SIPs in developing and developed countries was challenging. Among the main reasons for this were: (a) the absence of institutionalization possibilities for social innovations; (b) problems of transferring social innovations; and (c) conservatism of policymakers with regard to new social innovation practices. For instance, Asadova (2013) in her research compared social innovations in developing countries, namely Uganda and India, with social innovations in the USA and UK. Asadova (2013) argued that the “nature of social ­innovation in developing countries provides more opportunities for its spread due to larger number of unmet needs” (p. 45). She, however, pointed out the need of institutions for social innovations in developing countries. So far, Asadova found that “the lack of enabling institutions in developing countries put NGOs and grassroots at the forefront of social innovation pioneers” (p. 46). In other words, though the need for social innovation might exist, the absence of institutionalization possibilities hinders the introduction and spread of social innovation that is able to address this need. In contrast, Barraket et al. (2015) researched social innovations for health equity problems and found evidence from developing and developed countries that suggested that institutional frameworks can be adapted to accommodate innovative solutions to promote system-wide changes in health equity programs. A clearer understanding of the predictors of institutional barriers to

28 Background

innovation would assist decision-makers to target resources to systemic health issues more effectively. (p. 56) Clearly, institutionalization is not the only problem of developing countries, where institutions per se are usually relatively underdeveloped or function inefficiently. According to Barraket et al. (2015), developed countries also experience the institutionalization problem when it comes to social innovations. However, in developing countries, the scarcity of knowledge and skills to replicate social innovations (or at least elements of social innovation) does not allow scaling them up. This leads to the second reason for the scaling up challenge which is the issue of transferring social innovation. For example, Chowdhury in his study in rural India was guided by a primary research question: “How are social innovations transferred to other organizations to increase their impact?” (Chowdhury, 2010). After field observations, interviews and processing archival data, Chowdhury (2010) showed that the scaling process is fraught with challenges but can nevertheless be managed by focusing on the “Arrow core” – understanding of which knowledge attributes are replicable and worth replicating, together with knowledge of how these attributes are created, and the characteristics of environment in which they are worth replicating, of elements which enable a social innovation’s success. (p. 4) He argued that the mere existence of unmet needs did not increase chances for the diffusion of social innovations. The question of whether social innovations should be either managed or governed for their success was left without a convincing answer. Importantly, Chowdhury pointed out the scaling up challenge when knowledge of replication mechanisms of the elements that enable the success of social innovation is lacking. In contrast to Chowdhury’s findings, social innovations studied by Buchegger & Ornetzender (2000) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland showed that the transfer of successful ­examples is possible in principle; however, it requires substantial effort to adapt models to the new social setting. These examples demonstrate that the process of scaling up social innovations is equally challenging in the context of developing and developed countries. The third obstacle for scaling up social innovation is very well described in the case of post-communist countries of Eastern Europe. Asenova and Damianova in their contribution to the SI-Drive project discussed social ­innovations in post-communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe, in particular putting Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic under the focus of the research. Asenova and Damianova pointed out that

Background  29

the spread of such initiatives is challenged by the unpopular view on voluntarism in the countries under scrutiny and the conservative attitude of policy-makers and institutions towards social innovations. There is a hope that young people could change this in the future, and push social innovations forward. (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2018, p. 119) Since all post-communist countries inherited predominantly government-led policies in all areas, the engagement of civil society in solving social issues has started to emerge only recently, while volunteerism as a civic act remains undervalued. Policymakers remain pretty conservative with regard to wider civic participation in the problem solution of the society. Hence, the environment of low awareness of the civic activism’s value and the lack of policymakers’ support impede both scaling up and spread of social innovations. This is also true for other developing countries: for instance, in the case of Brazil mentioned by Bernal and Cecchini, the problem of scaling up and replicating social innovations, as well as the lacking government and international ­development agencies support in nurturing and replicating social innovations to solve social issues is also pointed out (Howaldt et al., 2018). In other words, scaling up social innovations across the social system remains required, but at the same time a challenging task and a criterion of social innovation. 1.6.8  Social change Social change is the final stage of social innovation. How it occurs and what are the paths to achieve it in different social contexts are the central questions of social innovation. For instance, Goldenberg (2009) in the study Social ­Innovation in Canada: An Update focus on the collaboration between different CSOs and groups in implementing social innovations. The report analyzed the role in social innovations of these non-profit organizations as well as community economic development organizations, social economy organizations, social enterprises and cooperatives. Goldenberg (2009) points out that a new collaboration strategy between CSOs in implementing social innovations is required to bring about social change. Social change appears in the structure of the society, as Zapf suggested “in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns, associated social actions and conscious awareness” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 427). Therefore, development and change are, according to Tarde, “enabled by invention, by successful [individual] initiatives that are imitated and hence become (social) innovations” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 363). While imitation, or, in other words, scaling/diffusion of the invention makes it a social innovation, it has to be also noted that social innovations are not necessarily (and in fact rarely) scaled by the inventor (Howaldt et al., 2014). The process of social innovation generation, according to social practice theory, undergoes the stages of implementation through planned or unplanned

30 Background

intervention and prototyping/piloting of a new idea in the existing social ­context. Institutionalization follows the implementation stage to assure that the new social practice became an everyday routine. Diffusion or imitation advances invention to the level of a new social practice that potentially changes the existing social structure and enables social change. These key stages of s­ ocial innovation generation are helpful in understanding of how the new ­social practice is able to bring about social change and create a new social reality.

1.7  Selection of theories 1.7.1  ‘Connected difference’ approach and social innovation In the first decade of the 21st century, social innovations received significant attention from scholars and practitioners. After the time of a relatively low level of interest to social innovation, the concept again gained its momentum. This happened due to the need to find innovative solutions to existing social problems. In this context, Mulgan’s definition of the social innovation concept as well as ‘connected difference’ approach to the generation of social innovation have contributed to the knowledge about social innovations. This was one of the most referred theoretical approaches to study social innovations (Domanski, 2017). Mulgan’s ‘connected difference’ approach, as well as Mulgan and Murray’s social innovation cycle, regarded social innovation as something new (idea, product, service, activity, etc.) in the social context that is able to address ­social needs (attain social goals), and by this make a social impact, involve (and cross) multiple disciplines/sector/actors, and progress throughout the process from the prompt to scaling up. The new relationships, which matter greatly to the people involved, contribute to the diffusion and embedding of the innovation. Also, they fuel a cumulative dynamic whereby each innovation opens up the possibility of further innovations. This approach highlights the critical role of ‘connectors’ in any innovation system – brokers, entrepreneurs and institutions that link together people, ideas, money and power – who contribute as much to lasting change as thinkers, creators, designers, activists and community groups (Mulgan, 2007). The ‘connected difference’ approach functions in the frame of practice-led ­approach that explains the generation of social innovation. The essence of the approach is in connecting different elements, individuals, organizations and groups not otherwise connected. By doing so, it creates new social relationships which matter in the generation of social innovation. 1.7.1.1  Social innovation cycle and social innovation The process from the prompt to systemic change, explained by Murray and Mulgan’s ‘stages of social innovation’, is also known as the social innovation cycle. According to the social innovation cycle, the ultimate goal of any social innovation is a systemic change that includes many elements and happens

Background  31

over a long period of time (Murray & Mulgan, 2010). European Commission Guide for Social Innovation (2013) describes this process as follows: They [social innovations] start as ideas, which may then be piloted or prototyped. If successful there is a process of sustaining the new model in the implementation stage – perhaps as a new venture or as a new policy within an existing institution. The final stage is to scale up so that the new approach makes a real impact and becomes part of the norm. (p. 9) Social innovation cycle starts from the diagnosis of the problem and identification of the need to innovate. This stage is dedicated to prompts, ­inspirations and diagnoses. The next stage is dedicated to proposals and idea generation. These stages are explained in Table 1.3. Mulgan’s ‘connected difference’ approach was the first systematic approach of conceptualization of social innovation as a new phenomenon in the societies able to address social problems. However, Mulgan’s perspective was criticized for two major reasons. First, Mulgan emphasized the normative overtone of social innovation, which is debatable and not a completely analytical approach toward understanding social innovation. Second, the problem with Mulgan’s approach to social innovation is that as Domanski (2017) described he [Mulgan] introduced the concept of social innovation with a significant normative element, and hence, this located social innovation primarily in the ‘social’ sector of NGOs, social enterprises etc., with less focus on the other societal sectors, namely government, economy, academia. (p. 21) Hence, the definition of social innovation provided by Mulgan (2007) emphasized that “innovative activities and services are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social” (p. 8). Just pointing out the social purpose of social innovation, Mulgan did not discuss how exactly social goals could be achieved. He did not elaborate on what should be considered as an ‘achieved social goal’, and what kind of institutional, structural, social and other possible changes this should bring into the social system. To address these aspects and fill these theoretical gaps, sociological theories have been further discussed. Table 1.3  Social innovation cycle Stages

Prototyping

Sustaining

Scaling

Systemic change

Explanation Testing ideas in Idea becomes Growing and New frameworks practice everyday spreading and/or practice innovation architectures made up of innovations Source: Murray and Mulgan (2010, p. 12).

32 Background

1.7.2  Sociological theories and social innovation Among the sociological theories, the aspect related to social innovation was well articulated by structuration theory. According to this theory, Pol & Ville (2009) consider social innovation as a mover of institutional change. By looking at social innovations through this prism, They attempted to provide an oblique and explicit definition of social innovation. Pol & Ville (2009) acknowledged “John Maynard Keynes’ deep insight that ideas are more powerful vehicles of institutional change than vested interests” (p. 5). They tried to situate social innovation as a theoretical concept, into the broader sociological context and ‘structure’ – ‘agency’ discourse in social science. Being inspired by Keynes’ vision of the primary role of the entrepreneur and his idea in the generation of innovation, the theory fails to further discuss elements to be modified in the society to enable institutional change. Parson develops and applies structural function theory to discuss those missing features and to add four elements, structural categories of the social system – role, collective, norms and values. Parson believes that these categories link individual roles and ­social values and can be used to define social innovations. To distinguish, say, social and economic innovations, typology would include ­above-mentioned categories to define social innovations as categories such as products, processes, marketing and organization, helpful to define innovations in the sectors of the economy (Hochgerner, 2012). Despite important contributions that structural function and structuration theories have made for the analysis and explanation of social innovations, they, nevertheless, do not fully address theoretical and empirical problems of social innovations. These problems are better addressed by social practice and actor-network theories. For instance, actor-network theory (ANT) considers the implicit understanding of ‘social’ as ‘taking care’, common good as a strategic mistake in the analysis of social innovations (Degelsegger, 2012). Latour explained that “social innovation as human-to-human interaction free from technological aspects and business motives is very simplistic and naïve understanding of social innovation” (as cited in ­Degelsegger & Kesselring, 2012, p. 34). Actor-network theory (ANT) has been first dedicated to the study of the process of innovation. Later, Degelsegger and Kesselring have experimented with this theory to establish a framework theory for social innovation (Degelsegger, 2012). Focused on the link of human and non-human (technological artifacts) actors, it is not restricted to social activities isolated from technological and economic innovations. Actually, according to Degelsegger (2012), “by going beyond high-tech solutions in the process of innovation, ANT looks at relationships that are also not purely social that include only human-to-human interaction isolated from ­technological and economic innovations” (p. 42). It allows a mixture of elements encompassing social innovation in social and non-social dimensions. These key elements enabling innovation according to ANT, are covered and explained in Table 1.4.

Interest The actors in the making exchange properties, modify their action programs, and may ultimately compose a new goal.

Composition The new actor becomes part of the modified action program. The actor becomes an obligatory passage point which means that the modified action program only works or functions because of this actor.

Obligatory passage point

Black-boxing

The modified The actor action network program becomes including black boxed the actors which and their means that relations the actors become and their more and relations more that enable routine. a certain The new program actor of action becomes are made a standard invisible. means

Alignment

The actors and their relations appear as one unified actor. Alignment, black boxing and convergence are strongly related.

Convergence

Source: Latour’s enrolment scheme (Latour, 1994, p. 37; adapted and explained by Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014) ).

Different elements Events or actions create (potential actors) mutual relevance and exist, but are not interest. Elements related. It is not become relevant for yet clear whether each other when for they may become instance an action related and thus, program fails or whether they does not command may become appropriate means to actors. reach its objective.

Disinterest

Table 1.4  Description of the key elements of innovation according to ANT

Background  33

34 Background

Innovation process, also called translation in ANT, covers five major components (see Table 1.4, Howaldt et al., 2014) connected in the network allowing inscription and associations of mediators to chains and actor networks enabling innovation process. ANT has made an important attempt in explaining the process of innovation and the ‘socialness’ of social innovation. However, Actor-network theory (a) does not distinguish between technological, business and social innovations; and (b) primarily considers ‘social’ in social innovation as communication/interaction between actors, rather than social impact. It does not mean, however, that actor-network theory ignores social impact as a required dimension of social innovation. Actor-network theory is criticized for treating human beings and non-human beings (artefacts) equally in its equation of social innovation. As Howaldt (2014) writes: Things do not determine action, they can only enable, facilitate, offer, encourage, suggest, inf luence, prevent, exclude and so on, they can open or constrain the scope of action. In dealing with things there is always a variety of modes of action. In this perspective, the approach is not a radicalization of the socio-technology approach, but in fact connectable to social theories of practices. (p. 38) In this regard, actor-network theory can be potentially combined with social practice theory, but only in a sense of regarding social practice as the network of elements (Howaldt et al., 2014). However, for better understanding and explaining social innovation and the process of its generation, actor-network theory is not sufficient. Therefore, discussing and applying social practice theory is required. 1.7.3  Social practice theory and social innovation Hochgerner, in his study ‘The Analysis of Social Innovations as Social Practice’ analyzed social innovation from the broader socio-economic perspective. Hochgerner (2012) claimed that “all innovations are socially relevant, and ‘social innovations’ may end up giving economically significant outcomes. But, to be considered as a social innovation, it has to bring a s­ ocial change, as technological and economic innovations” (p. 11). Indeed, the value of Hochgerner’s analysis is in defining social innovation through the lens of social practice. His definition of the concept of social innovation is not entirely novel per se, nevertheless, it adds to the emerging theoretical discourse on social innovations, the role of ‘creative idea’ and ‘invention’. He emphasizes that social innovations are not solely determined by the potential of idea, but also to what extent the potentials of idea are realized. It d­ epends on whether the ‘invention’ yields benefit to target groups and thus “in the process of

Background  35

implementation and dissemination a social idea mutates into a s­ ocial innovation” (Hochgerner, 2012). To get a broader sense of such effects Hochgerner (2012), in his work “The Analysis of Social Innovations as Social Practice” analyzed social innovations from the perspective of politics, culture, law and economics. He emphasized that “all innovations are socially relevant both those with objectives and rationality criteria to change economic parameters and those with social intentions and effects in the field of social practices” (p. 55). He assumed that innovations in their effects are not restricted to a single functional system irrespective of their type. In other words, innovations in economy do not change the economy only but affect politics, law and culture, and vice versa, social innovations in culture and politics have an effect on law and economy. Thus, the integration of these systems is vital for change (Hochgerner, 2012). Hochgerner, being predominantly preoccupied with the spread of social innovations across functional systems of the society, has not described how exactly social innovations affect politics, law, economy and culture. Remaining silent about mechanisms of social innovations’ action, Hochgerner also has not revealed a theoretical concept of social innovation, allowing for an academic discussion on social change in the society. This gap was addressed by Howaldt et al. (2014) in their study of social innovations as drivers of social change. Howaldt et al. (2014) were concerned by the development of the theoretical concept of social innovation and the contribution to the theory of social innovations in their work “Social Innovations as Drivers of Social Change – Exploring Tarde’s Contribution to Social Innovation Theory Building”. Howaldt et al. (2014) wrote: The emerging concept of social innovation suffers as a result of its poor social theoretical foundations with the consequence that there is a lack of clarity, especially concerning the relationship between social innovation and transformative social change. (p. 67) Howaldt et al. (2014) provided the conceptualization of social innovation by examining Tarde’s social theory. Howaldt et al.’s (2014) contribution to the development of the social innovations theory lies not only in their critical analysis of Tarde’s theory but also in the suggestion of a new theoretical approach to the analysis of social innovations. Howaldt et al. (2014) have analyzed social innovations through the lens of practice theory, emphasizing the role of new social practices in attaining social good. Howaldt et al. (2014) have pointed out the need to regard social innovation as the multilayer phenomenon which consist of countless and nameless inventions and discoveries that change society

36 Background

and its practices through equally countless acts of imitation, and only as a result do they become a true social phenomenon. (p. 28) Social practice theory emphasizes that social innovation is a new combination and/or configuration of social practices prompted by certain actors or constellation of actors in an intentionally targeted manner, in certain areas of action or social contexts, with the goal of better satisfying or answering needs and problems than is possible on the basis of established practices (Hochgerner, 2012). Social practice theory invention is a central element for social development, with imitation/repetition being the central mechanism of social reproduction and social change and social innovation (Howaldt et al., 2014). Tarde emphasized this key role of imitation of ideas as a connection ­between new ideas and the previously existing ones. Tarde pointed out that “the process is usually complicated and consists of numerous elements connected with each other, that after the intervention (of new ideas and elements) further become more complex elements of the more complex imitations” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 67). It is a connection between invention as the starting point of imitation, and imitation itself, that creates a new social situation (Howaldt et al., 2014). Invention and imitation start at the micro and meso levels, but to bring about social change, and to become a social innovation, new social practices should spread across the society as a result of their diffusion. To recall, social change in the society’s structure appears, as Zapf suggested, “in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns, associated social actions and conscious awareness” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 427). Therefore, development and change are, according to Tarde, “enabled by invention, by successful [individual] initiatives that are imitated and hence become (social) innovations” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 363). While imitation, or, in other words, scaling/diffusion of invention makes it a social innovation, it has to be also noted that social innovations are not necessarily (and in fact rarely) scaled by the inventor (Howaldt et al., 2014). As was mentioned in the section 1.6.8., the process of social innovation generation according to social practice theory undergoes the stages of implementation through planned or ­unplanned intervention and prototyping/piloting of a new idea in an existing social context. Institutionalization follows the implementation stage to assure that a new social practice became an everyday routine. Diffusion or imitation ­advances invention to the level of a new social practice that potentially changes the existing social structure and enables social change. These key stages of social innovation generation are helpful for understanding how new social practice is able to make a social change and create a new social reality. To embody anticipated social innovation, the following key elements of social practice described in Table 1.5 should be considered. According to Howaldt et al. (2014), “novelty can go out of each of these elements. New practices thus arise from the combination of new

Background  37 Table 1.5  Key elements of social practice Physicality

Materiality

Competencies

Sociality and physicality carried out practices

Things, technologies in and for social practice

Know-how, practical knowledge, background knowledge, understanding

Source: Howaldt et al. (2014, p. 13).

Table 1.6  Levels of operation of social innovation Micro level

Meso level

Macro level

Many small, locally It is about institutional Social innovation entails embedded initiatives change. That is, social a new division of address a variety of innovators as “rule labor between the distinct needs. By breakers” challenge sphere of politics, i.e. empowering vulnerable existing practices, welfare regimes and groups, they actively established welfare and institutions that govern facilitate processes of market institutions (e.g., them, civil society inclusion. rules, laws, attitudes, and market-driven modes of governance). economy. Source: Howaldt et al. (2018, p. 22).

and existing elements” (p. 91). As already mentioned above, social change may o ­ ccur through the mechanism of translating invention through imitation into ­socially reproduced new social facts able to change the social structure. According to Howaldt et al. (2014), “social innovations are shaping the sub-processes and elements of social change on the micro, meso and macro levels” (p. 7). These sub-processes are displayed in Table 1.6. Social practice theory was applied for analytical purposes of the current study to scrutinize the full scope of social innovations covering micro, meso and macro levels. To do so, the study refers to the social practice generation stages (see Table 1.7) that allow for the understanding of the process of social innovation generation based on the social practice theory. Discussion of social innovation as a social practice on a ­m icro-foundational level is a remarkable theoretical contribution of Tarde to the understanding of micro-foundational social changes and inventions able to lead to s­ocial change. Social practice theory also allows for a more nuanced analysis of social innovations by positioning it at different levels (micro, meso and ­ macro). Also, the theory provides the full scope of analytical instruments to scrutinize ‘social innovation’ project as a process (stages of social innovation generation) and the outcome (enabling social change). Therefore, from the discussion of social practice theory, the following criteria have been picked

38 Background Table 1.7  Social practice generation stages Stages

Invention Implementation Institutionalization

Explana- Discov- Introduction Idea becomes tion ering of idea a regular the into practice or idea context of made routine use

Diffusion

Social change

Fast and Change in sustained the social spread of structure of innovation a society, its underlying institutions, cultural patterns

Source: Howaldt et al. (2014, p. 19).

up for the evaluation of SIPs in post-Soviet countries: (1) SIPs should be new inventions (new actions or new in social contexts); (2) they should be prompted by certain actors or constellation of actors (networking and collaboration); (3) they should have the goal of better satisfying or answering needs and problems (social impact). To become macro-level social innovations, they should be (4) imitated (diffused), though not necessarily by the inventors, and, finally, institutionalized. While critically discussing the ‘connected difference’ approach, structuration, structural function and actor-network theories, I have detected certain shortcomings of these theories which do not allow for the analysis of SIPs. The theoretical review helps to comprehensively explain how social ­innovation has been generated and therefore is more applicable for the cases in ­post-Soviet countries. Based on the critical theoretical review, social practice theory was selected. Social practice theory satisfies the research on social innovations by studying it both in terms of the process (stages of social innovation), and the outcome (social change). Thus, it covers the modes of social innovation generation and the normative overtone of it, ­ref lected in the ultimate goal – to make a systemic (social) change. In this r­egard, social practice theory deals with the formal system (Howaldt et al., 2018) and offers new social practices that should change inefficient existing practices. Based on the literature and theoretical overview, eight common features of social innovations (see Table 1.8) have been identified. In the study, these common features served as the evaluation criteria for SIPs. The features of social innovations have been applied to reveal the differences between the SIPs in post-Soviet countries and other social innovations. To analyze and explain these differences, documents and online sources ­related to SIPs have been examined, as well as in-depth interviews with social innovation practitioners from different organizations in post-Soviet countries have been conducted (see Table 1.9). Additionally, the outputs of SIPs, where such outputs were available by the time of this research, have been critically discussed.

Background  39 Table 1.8  Common features of social innovations Features

Explanation

Newness

New inventions (new actions or new in social contexts). People-centeredness Individuals experiencing certain problems come up with solutions to these problems, which is at the core of any social innovation. Social innovations strive for more inclusiveness of individuals and social groups left behind by the previous policies and programs. Networking and Networking and collaboration among different collaboration actors (government, CSOs, private companies, individuals) for the generation and progress of social innovations. Localness and focus on Social innovations start locally. They are aimed specific domain or at specific domain (e.g., education, health care, sector neutrality governance). or Social innovation does not emerge in one sector and is not limited to one focus. Use of technologies (ICTs) Technologies (ICTs) used in designing and implementation of social innovations. Low-tech social innovations are also possible. Making social impact OR Addressing particular social problems and social addressing needs needs. Scaling up Scaling up/diffusion of social innovations across the social system. Social change The process of change in the social structure of a society in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns, associated social actions, and conscious awareness. Source: Table compiled by the author based on data from the reviewed literature, interviews, documents and online sources related to the projects.

Table 1.9  L  ist of interviewees Name

Ukraine Ms. Elena Vasiliu Ms. Olena Ursu Mr. Maksym Klyuchar Mr. Denis Gursky

Organization/Country/Position

Contact Progress/ (email) Comments

ADV/Romania/Expert on communications and marketing The UNDP/Civil Society Project Coordinator The UNDP/Knowledge Management Expert under the Democratization and Human Rights Program 2013–2016 1991 Open Data Incubator/Lead of SocialBoost, Co-founder of 1991 Open Data Incubator (Continued)

40 Background Name

Organization/Country/Position

Ms. Kateryna Onyiliogwu

‘Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services’ project/Open Data Team Lead Center ‘Eidos’/Head of Department of Budget Policy CEO DevRain Solutions/ Former Coordinator at EGAP Challenge

Mr. Volodymyr Tarnay Mr. Oleksandr Krakovetskyi Moldova Dmitri Belan

UNDP/Research Officer

Azerbaijan Ms. Nargi Gulieva UNDP/Head of Solutions Mapping Ms. Leyla Seyidzade UNDP/ Head of Exploration Georgia Ms. Khatuna UNDP (and Ministry of Justice))/ Sandroshvilli Service Lab Ms. Sesil Verdzadze UNDP Service Lab/ Head of solutions Mapping (former Head of Service Lab of the Public Service Development Agency Armenia Ms. Tatevik Papazyan Ms. Marina Mkhitaryan Mr. George Hodge Ms. Lia Mkhitaryan Ms. Lusine Tovmasyan Mr. Aleksey Chalabyan Ms. Gayane Mirzoyan Mr. Arthur Dolmajian Kazakhstan Mr. Talgat Bakushev & Janerke Egeubaeva

Eurasia Partnership Foundation/ Program Associate The UNDP/Kolba Innovations Lab Lead The UNDP/First Kolba Lab Manager ‘ARVest art education board game’ project/Leader of the project ‘Consumer Rights Protection Chat bot’ project/Leader of the project ‘Hosanq. Info’ & ‘Armenian Meteo’ projects/Leader of the project ‘Taghinfo’ project/Leader of the project ‘Quality of Life Calculator’ project/ Leader of the project Astana Hub/ Head of Office of Business Programs, Corporate Foundation, International Park of IT startups Astana Hub/ Director of Social Innovation Lab

Contact Progress/ (email) Comments

Background  41 Ms. Azaliya Daiirbekova Ms. Dinara Nurusheva Ms. Kaisha Atakhanova

Chief of Party USAID Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia (later, Social Innovations in Central Asia) EF of Central Asia/ Research and Development Manager Partnership for Innovations (P4I) Civil Society Development Association (ARGO)

Uzbekistan Ms. Elena Kudinova “Yuksalish” NWM/Country Director of the P4I project Ms. Emiliya The UNDP/ Program Associate at the Asadova Good Governance Unit Manager at the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Mr. Bokhodir Ayupov Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project Ms. Shakhnoz Volunteers coordinator at the UNDP/ Bazarova (Zafari) UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project Ms. Sevara Small Grants Program coordinator at Khamidova the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project Mr. Husan Manager at Center for Youth Initiatives Mukimov ‘Kelajak Ovozi’ Ms. Veronika Leading specialist on methodological Polyakova issues at National Library of Uzbekistan after Alisher Navoi Mr. Umid Gafurov ‘Infobox’ project/Leader of the project Mr. Dostonbek ‘Peers club’ project/Leader of the Kholosboev project Mr. Ulugbek ‘E-dairy’ project/Leader of the project Musabekov Ms. Lola Yuldasheva ‘Fantasy club’ project/Leader of the project Kyrgyzstan Mr. Emil Nasritdinov Tajikistan Mr. Vadim Sadonshoev & Ms. Angelika Popova Ms. Hazel Correa Source: own table.

SILK/Kyrgyzstan/Lab Director

Internews/Tajikistan/Head Internews/Tajikistan/Senior Manager USAID/Central Asia/Communications Officer

42 Background

To analyze the documents, questions have been posed in relevance to the available texts, highlighting the answers in the texts. Questions have been derived from the argument and theories and adjusted to the book’s objectives. Limitations of this method have been acknowledged: official documents and other sources of information might provide incomplete or biased information; also the practical implementation of SIPs might not fully correspond to the outcomes planned or reported in the documents. Therefore, the questions about the background, the purpose, and the goals of organizations/projects publishing the documents have been asked to identify possible biases and agendas that public, private and donor organizations might have while implementing SIPs. The data gained from interviews was combined/balanced with the data found in project documents available for analysis. Interviews also helped to obtain the data not available in the documents and to find and explain contradictions revealed while analyzing SIPs. Interviews have been carried out in person and/or via Skype/messengers during 2017, 2018 and 2021 with ­respondents from post-Soviet countries who have supported and/or introduced SIPs. Topics of the interviews were related to the background information and the argument derived from the theoretical literature. Interview’s questionnaire has been prepared in Russian and English. Certain limitations came up in the course of the research. First, the ­information about SIPs other than in Russian and/or English could not be accessed. Second, the research for the book covered umbrella organizations that have supported SIPs, which does not allow for in-depth analysis of every ‘social innovation’ project. Finally, some organizations implementing SIPs in post-Soviet countries could not be reached or their representatives refused to participate in the interviews; as a result, such organizations have not been covered in the book. At the same time, social practice theory, though covering many social innovation-related criteria, has not dealt with SIPs led by organizations ­ whose primary purpose is developmental. It misses the point of social innovation designed and implemented for development purposes in developing countries with economic, political and social systems in transition. It also does not discuss the peculiarities of such a social innovation in relation to other kinds of social innovations. Thus, given the fact that one of the focus of the study is on SIPs supported by development organizations in developing post-Soviet countries, transiting from Soviet highly-regulated economic, political and social systems to market economies and democratic governance, it is truly important to consider the developmental overtone of social innovations, which has been done by applying the human development theory. 1.7.4 Human development theory and developmental ‘social innovations’ Human development theory has been inspired by Amartya Sen and had a huge inf luence on the perception of development beyond economic

Background  43

growth. Sen emphasized the capabilities approach to development in form of freedoms and opportunities for individuals, mostly from the deprived communities. Sen’s perception of human development is valuable not only from the scholarly perspective but also from the UNDP’s standpoint that is being guided by his scholarly views in its development work. It is enough to mentions that the Human Development Index and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are inspired by Sen’s scholarly work. As Millard (2014) points out: Sen emphasizes capabilities rather than needs, prioritizing what people can do and be, rather than the income focus of the – basic needs a­ pproach. This core idea also underlies the United Nations Human ­Development Index, a human-focused measure of development pioneered by the UNDP in its Human Development Reports. (p. 42) To recall, in his book Development as Freedom Sen pointed out and discussed numerous aspects related to development beyond economic prosperity. Sen (1999) attempted to see development as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Sen (1999) saw the expansion of freedom as both primary (constitutive role) and principal means (instrumental role) of ­development. He considered five types of instrumental freedoms: (1) Political freedom; (2) Economic facilities; (3) Social opportunities; (4) Transparency guarantees and (5) Protective security. Sen developed the idea of development by comparing different aspects of China-India contrasts mentioning that these instrumental freedoms directly enhance the capabilities of people, posing interesting questions on the ­‘luxury’ of democracy for developing countries and linkage of priorities of social development, health care, education with economic growth of the country. In this context, Sen showed a different speed of development of China and India comparing social preparedness and social arrangements in the two countries. He talked about a relationship between GNP per capita and the development through public expenditure on health care and through the success of poverty elimination. As examples of such relationships, Sen mentioned China, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Brazil, South Africa, Gabon and Kerala. Sen described the relevance between the low income of these territories (Kerala, China, Sri Lanka) and high level of life expectancy in spite of the situation in Brazil, South Africa and Namibia where income was higher, but the life expectancy was lower because of the lack of ‘support-led’ process in these countries which might increase social opportunities and social development. The essential point was that the impact of economic growth depends much on how the fruits of the growth have been used. This explains how economies such as South Korea and Taiwan were able to raise life expectancy through economic growth (Sen, 1999).

44 Background

While discussing human development, Sen did not see economic development only in the GNP growth and proposed a so-called ‘support-led’ process by giving priority to providing social services even in developing and poor countries that reduce mortality and increase the quality of life, which subsequently leads to freedom and economic growth. He insisted on the importance of social arrangements in poor economies without waiting for ‘getting rich’ first (Sen, 1999). Moreover, Sen emphasized the role of democracy and political incentives/political liberty in avoiding economic disasters like for instance famine. Sen (1999) developed “the basic idea that the enhancement of human freedom is both the main objective and the primary means of development” (p. 146). There is a need to develop and support a plurality of institutions, democratic systems, legal mechanisms, market structures, educational and health provisions, media and so on. Sen argued that people must be actively involved in shaping their own destiny instead of just being passive recipients of the fruits of development programs. According to Sen (1999), “conceptualization of economic needs depends crucially on open public debates and discussions, the guaranteeing of which requires insistence on basic political liberty and civil rights” (p. 148). In this meaning, the capability approach developed by Sen has become an i­mportant new paradigm in thinking about development. Sen acknowledged that the achievement of social justice depends not only on institutional forms, but also on effective practice, and democratic institutions cannot be viewed as ­ uman mechanical devices for development. Thus, Sen contributed to the h development theory and formulated the freedoms, namely economic ­opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees and protective security, that constitute development beyond just economic growth. Essentially, capability approach “puts human agency at the center of the stage” (Howldt & Schwarz, 2017, p.12) providing a people-­centeredness criterion of social innovation, applicable in the current analysis. As an evaluative framework, capability approach can “promote the concept of social change as human development by focusing on social innovation as a new combination of capabilities” (Millard and Ziegler cit. in Howldt & Schwarz, 2017, ibid.). With regard to human development theory, several aspects have also been mentioned by Millard. He emphasized that due to the human development theory, the capabilities of people and communities have been considered in the process of societal change (Millard, 2014, p. 54). He also pointed out “the new understanding of governance as open, transparent, participative and empowering, underpinned by the human development theory” (p. 55). Those aspects have also been applied by the UNDP to its governance-focused development work.

1.8 Application of volitional and developmental ‘social innovation’ in the post-Soviet context As it was mentioned already above, in post-Soviet countries social innovation had volitional and developmental overtones. Therefore, SIPs in these post-Soviet countries were not falling under any types of social innovations

Background  45

discussed in the scholarly literature (Buchegger & Ornetzender, 2000; Evers & Ewert, 2012; Marques et al., 2018; Howaldt et al., 2018). They constitute a different type of ‘social innovation’ – volitional and developmental that deserves a separate and more specific analysis. The book demonstrates how volitional and developmental ‘social innovation’ has been applied in the post-Soviet context. In the case of the volitional character of SIPs, the point is straightforward and basically means that SIPs in post-Soviet countries have been planned forward by the donors (UNDP, UNICEF, USAID) as something that can be turned into true social innovations. In other words, the development projects have been conceptualized as social innovations in advance and funded by international donors as such because they believed that those projects could bring about development. To discuss and to add the ninth distinctive developmental feature, scholars and international development donors produced literature where development theories relevant to social innovations have been discussed critically. Based on that critical discussion of theories, gaps in modernization, ­sustainability and globalization, theory of change, reverse innovation and ­post-development theories have been identified. As a result, these theories were disregarded for either being too deterministic (e.g., modernization theory, theory of change), or not providing adequate evaluation criteria to assess SIPs (e.g., ­post-development theory). Moreover, none of them, except human development theory, have been matching with the international development framework in developing countries (and/or countries in transition). In fact, it is a human development theory that is situated at the core of the development work. Also, it was established that development aid adheres to the capabilities approach originating in the human development theory. Finally, human development theory shares the human-centeredness feature with social practice theory. In accordance with human development theory and donor’s development framework, in post-Soviet countries, the donors-supported SIPs were, indeed, aimed for development. These projects sought to improve living conditions and ensure the prosperity of people through guaranteeing better participation and inclusiveness of individuals and communities in the process of governance, and by making governance more transparent and accountable to citizens (individuals and communities). SIPs were aimed at empowerment and inclusion of individuals (e.g., through ICTs) in tackling challenges they were facing, and to achieve developmental goals by doing so. In practice, due to limitations in terms of time and financial resources, the donors were able to support SIPs to a limited extent. Subsequently, they could not follow up on the scaling up and social change the projects might bring about. Therefore, a project sought partnership with local organizations to hand over and institutionalize these projects, allowing them to sustain without the donor’s further support. While seeking for the implementation and ownership of the projects, the donors had to adapt its development aid to the in-country political and social contexts. To do so, they rightfully assumed

46 Background

that labeling the projects as ‘social innovations’ would probably make them less politically sensitive and more acceptable for national governments. For instance, in the case of Uzbekistan, in 2012–2014, due to the sensitivity of working with local communities, the UNDP had to come up with a less sensitive and at the same time efficient approach of delivering its aid to achieve Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Uzbekistan. That is why Emiliya Asadova of UNDP said that “doing social innovations was, probably, the only option for us as the UNDP to work on the local level, with local communities”.24 Other options allowing the UNDP to engage with locals were not acceptable for the government, and therefore not permissible. In Ukraine where the government seemed to regard innovations more favorably, UNDP has nevertheless worked either with non-profit organizations or by directly supporting SIPs through Hackathons or Social innovation camps. In the case of cooperation with the government, as UNDP’s Maksym Klyuchar recalls: “institutionalization of the idea/project was very difficult to implement, because due to change of the head of organization or its leadership prior agreements on the idea institutionalization were usually cancelled”.25 In other words, successful institutionalization of SIPs was possible only if they were supported by the particular head or leadership of the organization. Therefore, the UNDP had to adjust its projects to the perspectives and needs of the organization, as envisioned by its leadership, otherwise, SIPs failed. In the case of Armenia, Kolba Lab Lead Marina Mkhitaryan says: We could build the trust first, provided services for the government, so that people there understand that social innovation is not just kids playing technologies, but it is an impact and something you bring as a service for the government. Government realized that what Kolba Lab is doing, is not an additional burden. It was a long process and we had to play ­d iplomacy to get there.26 Again, in order to work with the government in the implementation of ­development projects, the UNDP and Kolba Lab first provided services to the government itself demonstrating the value of SIPs in governance. Only after realizing the benefits from SIPs, government entities started cooperating with Kolba Lab and the UNDP. This was a strategy to convince the government to accept SIPs and to support them in the governance realm. This was the way the donor organizations used the social innovation concept to adapt its development assistance to the in-country contexts in post-Soviet countries. They did so with different degrees of success, depending on the differences in the in-country political contexts and willingness of governments to cooperate.

Notes 1 See https://silab.kz/eng 2 See https://doskaz.kz

Background  47 3 See http://en.cso-central.asia/the-media-and-social-innovation-lab-­dushanbetajikistan/ 4 See http://en.cso-central.asia/the-media-and-social-innovation-lab-­dushanbetajikistan/ 5 See https://uz.usembassy.gov/partnership-for-innovation-program-in-­uzbekistangrant-competition-continues/ 6 See http://vxsida.gov.az/en/page/about-agency 7 See https://www.asan.gov.az/en/about 8 See https://sil.vc/about/ 9 See http://cbnet.com/cup/ 10 See http://sil.vc/programs/clp/ 11 See https://acceleratorlabs.undp.org/ 12 See https://www.az.undp.org/content/azerbaijan/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2018/UNDP-AZE-New-MD-Reference-App-To-Help-HealthcareProfessionals-during-COVID-19.html 13 See https://azerbaijan-undp.medium.com/finding-opportunities-in-a-crisishow-undps-accelerator-lab-in-baku-has-made-the-most-of-2020-16fe539 59764#:~:text=%E2%80%98Evdeqal%E2%80%99%20the%20countr y%E2 %80%99s%20first-ever%20one-stop%20shop%20portal%20for%20all%20e%20 services 14 See http://servicelab.sda.gov.ge/en/history/ 15 See https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/emergency-and-primary-services-for-peoplewith-disabilities/ 16 Extremely large data sets that may be analyzed computationally to reveal patterns, trends, and associations, especially relating to human behavior and interactions. 17 See https://epfarmenia.am/project/mardamej-social-innovation-camp?__cf_ chl_ jschl_tk__=8cdbfa2e3e256e99f676a822468399d996a3b3cc-1619947605-0AY7Qkf9MZxaKmRH-Feo9PiWkj1IFUje0DMK7OEGR7r0UkhzJl-ViRn– jeD6v5Slsw78V R mfQOyaCFC28aw-fsYqhK n EuNyEFtgKQg4YlH0pH cNFaWbggneALz2MEbkEKQ3l69Q67D4OUq JoZJoI1kdNOGRj8dtFGW 33Jf s B g Bh7jd pm a 6 u7o e 6 6D 9 r jS11r G2 0 J N F BV JZ9 8 g h x4u LjP Yt ckY gc8q_b6lrHXtmsZxfol1QQhf b8X7CBoE7OwKtasdL1Fq0BhmJD3wGJiE H x I O 9 P w sW Y 2 Q M A RO c e 2 Z t N B aV4 k-7 k DX j r j 7 i f e J u 1 n 4 Pc m U E 3 n e d n 4 2 a P f e M g q B r v l 7 l V l k f D sVrWg e 5 c v u M E R 9 31v 6 2 W S i K Y l D I s P N Vc E 2 L O e K I d 6 8 h i l i s y f Yc 3 o 3 F Z K c 6 r 1O z P n 3 N Ve K l x h Q Wgw2sKOA6qC6ODYzaWrs3_5Ix32yw 18 See https://epfarmenia.am/project/mardamej-social-innovation-camp?__cf_ chl_ jschl_tk__=8cdbfa2e3e256e99f676a822468399d996a3b3cc-16199476050 -AY7Qkf 9MZxaK m RH-Feo9PiWkj1IFUje0DMK7OEGR7r0UkhzJlVi R n–jeD6v5Sl sw78V R m f QO yaCFC28aw-f sYqh K n Eu NyEFtg KQg4 YlH0pHcNFaWbggneALz2MEbkEKQ3l69Q67D4OUq JoZJoI1kdNOGRj8dt FGW33JfsBg Bh7jdpma6u7oe66D9r jS11rG20JNFBV JZ98gh x4uLjPYtck Ygc8q_b6lrHXtmsZxfol1QQhf b8X7CBoE7OwKtasdL1Fq0BhmJD3wGJi E H x I O 9 P w sW Y 2 Q M A RO c e 2 Z t N B aV4 k-7 k DX j r j 7 i f e J u 1 n 4 Pc m U E3nedn42aPfeMgqBr vl7lV lk f DsVrWge5cvuM ER931v62WSiKY l DIs PN Vc E 2 L O e K Id 6 8 h i l i s y f Yc 3 o 3F Z K c 6 r1O z P n 3N Ve K l x h QWg w 2 s KOA6qC6ODYzaWrs3_5Ix32yw 19 A hackathon consists of events in which computer programmers, designers, project managers and domain experts gather to discuss and collaborate on SIPs. 20 See https://alaturidevoi.ro/en/portfolio/eu4youth-social-innovation-­i mpact-astrategic-partnership/ 21 See https://alaturidevoi.ro/en/portfolio/cross-border-partnership-for-the-­ development-of-social-entrepreneurship/ 22 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/projects/­moldovasocial-innovation-hub-2.html

48 Background 23 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/projects/moldova-­ social-innovation-hub-2.html 24 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 25 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 26 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017.

References Barraket, J., Mason, C., Friel, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2015). Evidence review: social ­innovation for health equity promotion. Victoria: VicHealth. Bassi, A. (2016). Social innovation policies with the involvement of social economy organizations survey evidence from European countries. Bologna: University of Bologna. Bekkers, V. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: A ­literature review of relevant drivers and barriers (pp. 1–38). Rotterdam: Erasmus ­University Rotterdam. Bhatt, P. (2013). How social capital is leveraged in social innovations under resource constraints? Management Decision, 51, 1772–1792. Bruck, A.P., & Roth, M. (2013). Social innovation and the power of technology. In: Osburg, T., Schmidpeter, R. (eds.) Social innovation: Solutions for a sustainable future (pp. 267–279). Berlin: Springer. Buchegger, B., & Ornetzeder, M. (2000). Social innovations on the way to sustainable development. ESEE Conference (pp. 1–11). Vienna: Zentrum für soziale Innovation. Chowdhury, I. (2010). Scaling social innovations: The case of gram Vikas. INSEAD. ­Fontainebleau: INSEAD. Degelsegger, A. (2012). Do non-humans make a difference? The actor-networktheory and the social innovation paradigm. In: Franz, H.W., Hochgerner, J., Howaldt, J. (eds.) Challenge social innovation (pp. 59–72). Berlin: Springer. Domanski, D. (2017). Exploring the research landscape of social innovation. Dortmund, Germany: A deliverable of the project Social Innovation Community (SIC). Evers, A., & Ewert, B. (2012). Social innovations for social cohesion. In: Nicholls, Alex; Simon, Julie; Gabriel, Madeleine (eds.) New Frontiers in Social Innovation ­Research (pp. 107–127). Palgrave: Macmillan. Gerometta, J. (2005). Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: ­Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42 (11), 2007–2021. Goldenberg, M. (2009). Social innovation in Canada. Ottawa: CPRN Research Report. Hochgerner, J. (2011). The analysis of social innovations as social practice. Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, 5, 1–14. Hochgerner, J. (2012). Challenge social innovation: An introduction (pp. 4–385). Berlin: Springer. Howaldt, J. (2015a). On the theory of social innovations: Tarde's neglected contribution to the development of a sociological innovation theory. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. ­ arde’s Howaldt, J. (2015b). Social innovations as drivers of social change – exploring T contribution to social innovation theory building. New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, 1, 29–51. Howldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2017). Social Innovation and Human Development – How the Capabilities Approach and Social Innovation Theory Mutually Support Each Other. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2): 163-180.

Background  49 Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical ­approaches to social innovation - a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: ‘Social innovation: driving force of social change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: ­ Sozialforschungsstelle. Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schroeder, A., & Zimgiebel, M. (2018). Atlas of social innovation. New practices for a better future. Dortmund: European Commission. Ionescu, C. (2015). About the conceptualization of social innovation. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22, 53–62. Krlev, G., Bund, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring What M ­ atters: Indicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level, 204. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2014.923265. Marques, P., John Morgan, K., & Richardson, R. (2018). Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept. Politics and Space, 36 (3), 496–512. Millard, J. (2014). Development theory and social innovation. In: Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (eds.) Theoretical approaches to social ­innovation – a critical literature review (pp. 34–52). A deliverable of the project: ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Moreno, C. (2017). Republic of Colombia. Social innovation for peace building in Colombia. Learning from international experiences in peace process scenarios. ­Washington: World Bank. Moulaert, F., Maccallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2014). The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. The international book on social innovation. United States: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be ­accelerated? Oxford: Basingstoke Press. Mulgan, G., & Murray, R. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: The Young Foundation. Mumford, D.M., & Moertl, P. (2003). Cases of social innovation: Lessons from two innovations in 20th century. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 261–266. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Sarius, T., & Wokuvitsch, F. (2015). Local social innovation and welfare state restructuring: Analyzing their relationship. Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. Osburg, T. (2013). Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Berlin, H ­ eidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Pol, E., & Ville S.P. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38 (6), 878–885. Puttick, R. (2013). NESTA Standards of Evidence: An approach that balances the need for evidence with innovation. London: NESTA. Santha, D. (2019). Critical transitions in social innovation and future pathways to sustainable development goals. The Indian context. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 80 (1), 9–30. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

50 Background Social innovation for public service excellence. (2014, January 1). Retrieved June 16, 2017 from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/capacity-­ development/English/Singapore%20Centre/GCPSE%20Social%20Innovation %20Summary.pdf. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17 (1), 1–14.

2 Generation, features and assessment of the ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Central Asia 2.1 Generation of ‘social innovation’ projects: how it worked Paths of ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs) generation and development have differed significantly across Central Asia. In Kazakhstan, SIPs have been supported by different organizations including government entities, civil society organizations (CSOs) and ­international donors. For instance, the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia (later changed its name to USAID Social Innovation in Central Asia Program) is implemented by the U.S.-based CSO ‘Eurasia Foundation’. The program is planned for five years (2019–2024)1 and, as evident from the ­initial name of the program, the USAID’s primary programmatic goal was to support the civic sector in Central Asia and to promote SIPs through ­non-governmental organizations. As a result of the cooperation between USAID and the CSOs Development School, an online course on social innovations for CSOs2 has been developed. SIPs were focusing on solving social issues such as restoring local communities in the city of Almaty and traffic police corruption. Azaliya Daiirbekova, Chief of Party of the USAID Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia, mentions examples of such projects: In Almaty on restoring local areas where communities reside. A simulation game for this purpose was created. For instance, if I want to cut a tree - what organizations I need to apply to get a permission. The CSO who initiated this project could get the support of business of the online portal on real estate ‘Krisha.kz’ which is used by almost the entire country. So they have created the simulation game and spread it across the whole portal. Thus, it is always useful and interesting when NGO goes beyond its institutional borders and collaborates with the business sector, of course when there is an element of advocacy included. 3

DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-3

52  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

UNICEF in Kazakhstan supported SIPs within its mandate and ­priorities. The organization was looking for supporting children through digital instruments. Therefore, UNICEF allied with Astana Hub – a Kazakh government-­ supported entity. Talgat Bakushev, Head of Office of Business ­Programs, Corporate Foundation, International Park of IT startups Astana Hub, a.i. says: It was an initiative of UNICEF that due to digitalization and i­ ntroduction of new digital products it is required to increase the role of technologies in peoples’ lives and to create a digital government for children. It was a Global Program of UNICEF. Within this program it is necessary to use development of technologies for children.4 CSOs driving ‘social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan were also ­trying to operate on the policy level to address social issues. For instance, the ­A ssociation on Development of Civil Society (ARGO) supported ‘social innovation’ projects to improve policies across the Central Asian region. As Kaisha Atakhanova, Chief of Party, Partnership for Innovations (P4I), ARGO, explains: We intend to solve pressing social issues in a more efficient manner. We also want to improve policies on the national and regional levels. ­P4Innovation Program is aimed at making programs in the new format content-wise, generating new ideas, supporting new actions in the region. ARGO never intended to create its branches in the countries of the region. We think that our approach is to adapt to the exciting country realities. We work through partners in the countries because networking and infrastructure that unites partners is valuable.5 For CSOs in Kazakhstan, the transition to ‘social innovation’ projects ­coincided sometimes with the transformation of CSOs’ mandate and activities. A good example of this is Eurasian Foundation in Kazakhstan. As its Director, Rinad Temirbekov, mentions: Before 2005 we were a representation of the American Eurasia ­ oundation, and our task was to give away social grants. From 2006 F we shifted to self-financing and systemic engagement with corporate donors. We justify innovativeness of the project in the part of problem identification of the project proposal. We always require the review of the practices and ideas before presenting them to us as something innovative. And we never ask for something completely new, we just ask the ideas to be tested before adapting them to the local context. We require needs assessment because our organization works on the grass-roots level with local communities.6

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  53

In practice, it was never easy to set criteria and choose SIPs. For instance, Astana Hub and UNICEF were very f lexible on SIPs selection criteria. As Talgat Bakushev mentions: “We are open for everyone. Support for the projects is given to the existing program”.7 Obviously, vague criteria for the projects made it possible for a lot of very diverse ideas to be pumped into the local social context. Certainly, those ideas were addressing a range of issues like corruption, medical care and education of kids. Injected ideas that looked contextually new were not necessarily socially innovative. Table 2.1 covers the examples of SIPs in Kazakhstan. In Kyrgyzstan, Social Innovation Lab Kyrgyzstan (SILK) was the only initiative dealing with SIPs. Establishing SILK was an entirely new Table 2.1  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan Category ICT (Social Innovation Lab of Astana Hub and UNICEF)

Brief description of the projects

• ‘Smart grade’ – a mobile application that allows a child to ‘earn’ pocket money on their education through Smart Grades; • Blizkie (close ones) – a communication simulator for parents of teenagers; • Qlang – education online platform the internet browser extension for the translation to Kazakhs language; • ‘Accessible Kazakhstan’ – information service for monitoring accessible and safe places for children. Social • ‘Jarkira’ social entrepreneurship program – full support entrepreneurship of social entrepreneurs through education, mentorship, internships and interest-free loans; • Impact Hub Almaty – a platform for cooperation on innovations in entrepreneurship; • Social entrepreneurship development in Kurike – a program allowing accessing financial resources and increasing potential of start-ups, for stimulating employment and entrepreneurship in Kurike village; • ‘3.2.1. Start! – Youth social projects in Kazakhstan – support of youth initiatives to resolve social and environmental problems in Kazakhstan. Corporate social • Principals of CSR and children rights in Mangistau responsibility region – a project to protect children rights, principals of (CSR) CSR and private-public partnership in Mangistau region; • Monitoring and evaluation of social projects – survey among 155 organizations that received funds from North Caspian Operating Company in Atirau and Mangistau regions. Support of • Widening opportunities of CSO in promotion of human vulnerable rights in South Kazakhstan groups • Reforming the system of provision of legal support to vulnerable groups. (Continued)

54  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia Category

Brief description of the projects

Good governance and citizens’ involvement

• Good governance foundation – a project aimed at improving the quality of life of citizens of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan through the institutional reforms in good governance based on cooperation with the government, civil society and private sector; • CSOs initiatives in sustainable development – a project improving programmatic, financial and organizational sustainability of Kazakh human rights CSOs; • Public spaces – a project that increases civic engagement through the improvement of public spaces in Bautino, Fort-Shevchenko and Borankul. • ‘Growing together’ – initiative on the development of pre-school education in Kurike; • ‘Hand in hand we learn’ – development of school education; • Building a kindergarten in Ust-Kamenagorsk.

Education and youth

Source: Table compiled by the author based on the resources provided by Astana Hub and Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia.

initiative for Kyrgyzstan, the Lab was created as a result of a partnership between an ­academic institution, namely the faculty of the American University of C ­ entral Asia (AUCA), and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) in Kyrgyzstan. SILK started operating primarily in Bishkek in January of 2021, with a budget of 14.000 USD allocated SIPs support in the first half of the year. Dr. Emil Nasritdinov, SILK Director, says: The idea and the concept of SILK came from the discussion with OSF director Mr. Shamil Ibragimov and his idea to create the Dashboard for Bishkek city to demonstrate how the city is functioning. We have started thinking about the platform where the idea could be realized. I mentioned that an analytical center can serve the role of such platform. Mr. Ibragimov offered the name – Social Innovation Lab; later we added Kyrgyzstan, so it became SILK. Finally, we decided to be a faculty initiative under the division of social sciences of AUCA. At that time, we were redesigning the existing Environment and Urban Studies program into Urban Planning and Design and redesigning the MA Program in Anthropology into Anthropology, Urbanism and International ­Development. We were hoping to find a director for SILK, who would at the same time be a lecturer in these programs. Since SILK was focused on Bishkek city urban planning and the i­ mprovement of city infrastructure, Nasritdinov mentions that the “Green Bishkek project was aimed for preserving green and blue zones of the city across the channels and rivers in Bishkek. Green zones will be connected by walking and bike paths”.8 In Kyrgyzstan, launching SIPs became an opportunity for an

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  55

academic and a civil society organization to join forces to undertake research with a potential of its practical application for the benefit of Bishkek citizens. Projects started by SILK are listed in Table 2.2. In Tajikistan, SIPs have been similarly supported by a Media and Social Innovation Lab. The Lab is an annual event which in 2017 was organized by Internews Network in Central Asia, Civil Society Development Association ‘ARGO’ (Kazakhstan), the Media Academy of Tajikistan and the International Public Organization ‘Fidokor’ in the framework of ARGO’s ‘­Partnership for Innovations – P4I’ program and Internews’s ‘Access to Information’ program, with the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Innovation for Change.9 In Tajikistan, the initial goal of the Lab, according to Angelika Popova, Senior Manager of Internews, was: Helping partners to produce high quality content. We do so also through Labs uniting NGOs and IT experts, basing on the existing problems in the society. We do so to attract attention of the decision-makers to the problem and youth as problem solvers.10 Vadim Sadonshoev, Head of Internews, mentions the gap the Lab was trying to fill: One of the biggest NGOs’ problems is their lack of exposure while the media concurrently has a problem of finding an issue worth talking about. The media also lacks sufficient expertise to tell about the issue. This is where NGOs and the media decided to collaborate. Based on this idea we designed the Social Innovation Lab.11 Table 2.2  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kyrgyzstan Category

Brief description of the projects

Urban City Dashboard, a website with real-time data about the City of development Bishkek; Bishkek Walkability Index, a study of the walkability of the City of Bishkek; Rivers Morphology and Mythology, a study of urban rivers in the City of Bishkek with the goal of turning them into a community asset; Kөk Bishkek, a vision for a blue-green city that revitalizes and interconnects its rivers and parks; Models for Measuring Social Capital in Urban Communities; Surveying Industrial Parks (Promzona) in Bishek; Innovative Technologies for Research on Urban Issues; Models for Public Art Programs; Mapping Urban Poverty; Bishkek Blog. Source: Table compiled by the author based on SILK data at https://www.auca.kg/en/dss_silk/.

56  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia Table 2.3  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Tajikistan Category

Brief description of the projects

Media and ICT Creation of an information site for returned migrants; Creation of a huber-service that will help find people who are ready to take passengers free of charge along their route, bring such people together and attract new ones; Creation of an information portal for artisans. Source: Table compiled by the author based on the data available at https://internews. kg/glavnye-novosti/tri-komandy-iz-kyrgyzstana-uchastvuyut-v-laboratorii-media-i-­ socialnykh-innovacijj-v-dushanbe/.

While not applying any particular selection criteria for Media and Social Innovation Lab SIPs, Internews was looking for “application of innovative methods and instruments”12 in the proposed project ideas. The projects initiated by the Media and Social Innovation Lab are demonstrated in Table 2.3. In contrast to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the promotion of social innovations was not always a priority for Uzbekistan. Civil society and the private sector had remained largely uninterested in social innovations. Only from 2012 had United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UNDP/United Nations Volunteers (UNV) ‘Social Innovation and ­Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project started supporting small-scale SIPs in local communities aimed at empowering individuals and fostering social innovations. These small-scale projects were designed to solve developmental issues such as water and electricity scarcity, inclusiveness of people with disabilities and transparency and accountability of local public authorities.13 After the completion of this UNDP/UNV project, innovations in general and social innovations in particular were largely left out of government and civic sector plans and activities. In 2012–2014, the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and V ­ olunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project started funding initiatives aimed at generating smallscale SIPs and solving local issues in various regions of Uzbekistan by engaging with local communities and authorities. Called the Small Grants Program (SGP), it was not limited to funding projects only but offered training and mentoring elements for program participants lacking basic project management, creative thinking, ideation and innovation skills. According to Sevara Khamidova, SGP Manager, the two-principles criterion was applied to the selection of a small-scale ‘social innovation’ project to be funded by SGP. This criterion was: 1 In the project, existing practices should be used in a new manner (new partnership, new elements and new combinations)

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  57

2 The project should change the life of local communities through the identification of a problem and offering a new solution to this problem.14 Although the selection criterion was not unambiguous in itself, SGP ­d eveloped a process based on a very detailed application form for smallscale SIPs. In essence, the process of generating ‘socially innovative’ projects has been designed in a manner to encourage a human-centered approach to the social problem. This approach falls under the new UNDP philosophy towards development projects, with the central role being played by individuals affected by the given problem. The UNDP, in accordance with the human-centered approach, should be encouraging citizens’ participation and engagement in solving problems of their communities, by equipping them with relevant skills as well as necessary funding. Based on this understanding, SGP had the following process for local SIPs generation: 1 Call for proposals/ideas (problem identification and presentation by ­f illing out the application form, presenting and pitching) 2 Incubation (training on social innovations and project management) (two days) 3 Working out prototypes and contentious work with mentors (several months) 4 Presenting prototypes (receiving feedback from mentors and other experts from private, public and civic sectors) 5 Adjusting and implementing the project 6 Institutionalization Following the call for applications for funding, SGP organized a two-day intensive workshop for project leaders delivered by invited experts from the Austrian University for Business and Economics, the Department of Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship, and the United States. The projects were evaluated also by representatives of private and public sectors against their social and entrepreneurial potential and innovativeness. Then projects were incubated and prototyped for up to one year, with mentoring support all along by private and public sector experts and UNDP representatives. At the outset, the UNDP emphasized the need for the institutionalization of each project. For this reason, the UNDP and the projects were looking for local organizations and partners who would be able to test and later use the ideas and methodologies generated by SIPs. Moreover, since the seed funding provided by the UNDP was limited, support from local institutions was necessary for the ideas to be sustained and further developed. That could be achieved only if new social practices proposed by the projects stir interest in local communities and organizations. In fact, SIPs in the local context were supposed to disrupt established practices by changing them to new practices, and in that sense, local-level SIPs in

58  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

Uzbekistan served as integrators of new social practices. As per Tarde’s social practice theory, new social practices enable social innovation. In Uzbekistan, the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV project intended to nurture inventions and ideas within small-scale SIPs, which was a novelty for the country’s social context. Later, through the imitation and repetition of them by social actions, it was intended that the new socially desirable practices would be spread across the existing social system. This approach was at the core of small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project, described in Table 2.4. Table 2.4  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan supported by UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project, 2012–2014 Category

Brief description of the projects

ICT (for people from vulnerable groups)

• ‘IT masters’ – teaching IT skills to unemployed individuals for better job opportunities; • ‘Muynak website’ – a website for a small town experiencing an environmental disaster and economic challenges, to boost local and international tourism; • ‘E-dairy’ – an electronic diary for parents to follow the in-class grades and accomplishments of their children at school; • ‘Infobox’ – a mobile app containing information about the Bukhara city, available for tourists and locals. • ‘Mobile electro-station’ – an engineering construction allowing the generation of energy from wind; • ‘Enjoying old age’ resource center – a physical space for elderly people to learn new skills and communicate with each other; • ‘Shower and water supply’ in fields in rural areas, plus foil for warming up water – a water supply system allowing for the efficient collection, saving and distribution of water for hygienic purposes in rural areas (farms). • ‘Summer Camp and DIY Labs in Muynak’ – training and workshops have focused on the ‘Do-It-Yourself ’ methodology for solving local issues; • ‘Debates tournament in Andijan’ – a training on debating techniques and methodologies for youth to strengthen their role in the local context; • ‘Training on reproductive health among the Roma population’ –training based on the peer-to-peer methodology to promote reproductive health among so-far neglected parts of the population; • Module ‘All the money under control’ – a methodology of keeping funding accountable and manageable; • ‘Awareness-raising campaigns for Breast Cancer prevention among women in Jizzakh’ – new approaches for promoting breast cancer awareness; • ‘Inspired Teachers’ – a new methodology of preparing English teachers from local schools; (Continued)

Engineering/ infrastructure

Education/ training and workshops

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  59 • ‘English guides’ – new guides on effective English teaching under supervision; • ‘Social Entrepreneurship skills’ – training on teaching social entrepreneurship skills; • ‘Constructor’ – a scheme increasing young people’s interest in science, through developing design and construction skills; • ‘Peers club’ – a club of peers which enables skills and knowledge exchange, as well as coaching each other; • ‘Café Scientifique’ – a project promoting science through an untraditional (out of the classroom) approach;

Specifically aimed at people with disabilities

Filming/Arts

Others

‘Volunteers engagement (in the NatLib)’ – educating volunteers for the National Library of Uzbekistan. Sharing the culture and values of volunteerism. • ‘Fantasy-Club’ initiatives – courses on beading and jewelry for girls with disabilities, plus a new marketing approach for goods produced by the girls; • ‘Mohir Hunarmand’ – a course teaching new skills to children (including children with disabilities) from orphanages; • ‘The week of football’ – a football tournament for people with disabilities; • ‘Translations of audio and video for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing’ – creating audio and video materials for people with disabilities available publicly; • ‘Taxi for people with disabilities with ‘Perekrestok’ Taxi’ – a taxi redesigned specifically for drivers with disabilities. • ‘Afishka’ Festival of auteur theory and social films – a festival on short movies on social issues; • ‘Film on TB prevention’ – a movie which approaches the tuberculosis problem in a new (unusual for the Uzbek context) manner; • ‘Voice of volunteers’ – a radio program on pressing social issues, designed by volunteers; • ‘Theatre by children’ – a theatre of children for children, describing and solving pressing social problems; • ‘Video project about people living with HIV’ – a new approach to raising public awareness of the problem of HIV in Uzbek society. • ‘Eco bags with ‘Korzinka.uz’ – social enterprises producing eco-bags and selling them out through the retailing chain of ‘Korzinka.uz’ supermarkets; • ‘Promoting local tourism in social networks (with the LGSP project)’ – a new approach in promoting local tourism; • ‘Iact. Volunteers platform’ – a new online platform uniting volunteers in Uzbekistan. Connecting those who need volunteers with those who wish to volunteer; • ‘Do It Yourself (DIY) Lab’ – conducting the ‘Do-It-Yourself ’ methodology through the lab works in different public places, to encourage solutions for problems through the local mobilization of human resources and waste.

Source: Table compiled by the author based on UNDP data.

60  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

Only under President Mirziyoyev, SIPs again started gaining recognition as the support of innovations and in general, became one of the government’s priorities. In 2017, the Ministry of Innovative Development was established to support economic, industrial and social innovations. Immediately after that public discussions of the concept of innovational development of Uzbekistan started, and in 2018 the Ministry, the Center for Development Strategy and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation organized the First International Forum on Innovations in the Social Sphere, where social innovations were discussed with experts, government officials and representatives of civil society organizations. Later, the USAID-funded and ARGO-supported project ‘Partnership for Innovations’ (P4I) was launched in Uzbekistan, providing seed funding for local CSOs willing to introduce social innovations. The main operator of the project is ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide Movement in partnership with ARGO. Elena Kudinova, Country Director of the P4I Project in Uzbekistan, has elaborated on selected projects and criteria applied in the selection process: We work with twenty CSOs. We have provided funding for 25 ­projects already. One of the criteria was that the project is coming from the region. For some projects criteria are to be socially significant, aimed at collaboration with government. We do not select the projects. Independent members of the committee select the projects.15 Before being considered by the Selection Committee, all applications undergo an initial selection for compliance16 with the requirements of the grant competition: 1 A clear understanding of the problems and needs of the project stakeholders, realistic goals and objectives of the project – 20 points 2 Project activities are focused on achieving specific results and project goals – 20 points 3 The strategy for increasing the participation of civil society in decision-­ making processes is realistic, ensures the achievement of the project goal and also ref lects the participation of project stakeholders – 15 points 4 Public significance and expected results of the project are justified, correspond to the objectives and priorities of the competition – 15 points 5 Experience in implementing projects in the field of public participation – 10 points 6 The budget of the project corresponds to the activities of the project. Costs match market prices – 10 points 7 Sustainability of project results – 10 points P4I and ‘Yuksalish’ have streamed funding of regional ‘social innovation’ projects and supported socially significant projects that tend to cooperate with the government. The list of SIPs supported by ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I is shown in Table 2.5.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  61 Table 2.5  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan supported by ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I Category

Brief description of the organizations (projects)

Small grants and methodological support for NGOs

‘Nihol’ (Tashkent) ‘Special Olympics’ (Tashkent) ‘Yuksak salohiyat’ (Tashkent) Center for Development of Modern Journalism (Tashkent) ‘Taraqqiyot’ (Fergana region) ‘Prometheus’ (Fergana region) ‘Ayol va shodlik’ (Surkhandarya region) ‘Hamdard’ (Khorezm region) ‘Mehr’ (Syrdarya region) Small grants and Public Council under the State Committee for Ecology methodological and Environmental Protection support for Public Public council under the Tashkent city administration councils Public Council under the Bukhara regional administration Public Council under the Kokand city administration Public Council under the Department of Justice of Namangan region Co-working centers to Women’s and youth center ‘Tumaris’ (Navoi region) support vulnerable Legal Resource co-working center on gender education population and civil Center of development and support of initiatives activists ‘Nihol’ (Tashkent) ‘Tarakkiyot’ support and development center (Fergana) NGO ‘Ezgu niyat’ and the project ‘Successful space’, created on the basis of additional space for civil activists and people with disabilities (Kokand). Source: Table compiled by the author based on data provided by ‘Yuksalish’.

All in all, ‘social innovation’ projects in Central Asia were supported by different, albeit often overlapping organizations. In particular cases, the government (e.g., Astana Hub in Kazakhstan) has engaged with international donors to promote social innovations. Predominantly, however, the ­non-governmental sector was considered a driver and generator of ‘social innovation’ projects. It is also evident that SIPs have not been selected based on clear and unambiguous criteria. Lack of streamlined criteria is a common characteristic of how SIPs in Central Asia have been approached by donors.

2.2  Assessment of SIPs against social innovation criteria 2.2.1  Mostly new SIPs In Central Asian countries, promoters of social innovations were looking for new ideas and projects enabling innovations in the local contexts. In almost all cases, the criterion of newness of an SIP has been fully adhered to. In the

62  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

case of SIPs implemented in Kazakhstan, all project operators agreed that they will be pushing forward ideas, instruments and methodologies entirely or partly new for the existing social reality and context. Azaliya Daiirbekova notes: “Social innovations should be new for the ­context. We receive proposals and if people say that this is something new for the region, we accept it”.17 Kaisha Atakhanova (ARGO), Talgat Bakushev and Janerke Egeubaeva (Astana Hub), Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva and Assel Murat (Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia) and Vadim Sadonshoev (Internews in Tajikistan) have all agreed that SIPs should be at least partly18 or contextually19 new. Emil Nasritdinov of SILK (Kyrgyzstan) was the only one to disagree that SIPs should always bring about newness. He says: Social innovations should not always be new. For instance, Soviet urban planning with its principles of functional zoning helped preserve green spaces and in essence it is very similar to what we offer within our initiatives. Social innovations are not necessarily something brought from the West, this can be anything already established in the past and revived now. In fact, the core issue in Central Asia was to define what is new and what is not in SIPs. Certainly, a contextual character of social innovation might be a valid explanation of its newness, but it can also be sometimes a convenient excuse hiding the lack of clear understanding of whether a ‘social innovation’ project actually introduces anything new. For instance, Rinad Temirbekov (Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia) says: Everything is relative. What was innovative ten years ago now is standard. I am in EF from 1999. I can tell that micro-credits were innovative, back in 2005 a foundation of local communities was innovative. We had only three foundations across Kazakhstan. Establishing business incubators and technological parks was also innovative. Now, supporting social entrepreneurship is also an innovation. Also, something old and forgotten can become an innovation now. Another example is the use of new methodologies like agile, design thinking in project management that has not been used before. Organizing hackathons and online platforms, impact investment-oriented projects. SDGs are designed in this frame.20 Usually, if an organization does something that is not being done by other organizations, this is considered as something new. This might look like a totally misleading perception of newness, but it fits well in the relative or contextual trait of social innovation. Dinara Nurusheva and Rinad ­Temirbekov where mentioning projects supported by Eurasia Foundation (EF) on social entrepreneurship21 as one of the most sustainable foundations of local communities, and the only program on social entrepreneurship in Western

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  63

Kazakhstan. Another example of the project supported by EF is an interactive map ­‘Accessible P ­ avlodar’ where any person can map places.22 By providing these examples, they explain that EF started using the term ‘social innovation’ in Kazakhstan only 5–6 years ago but in their projects, they always thought about innovations - especially for a corporate donor, because for the donor it was necessary to support something that had not been done before.23 Despite the lack of a clear understanding of social innovation in Central Asia, organizations tried to handle social issues innovatively and disrupt the traditional behavioral model. For instance, SILK in Kyrgyzstan has started making small steps towards changing old-fashioned methods of urban planning. Dr. Nasritdinov recalls: In another project called “Bishkek Blog” we try to push the boundaries and tell about the city in less traditional manner. We do not want to talk about main squares, streets, historical monuments etc. For instance, we reported about garages, dovecotes, about railroad and various residual spaces formed next to it. Last week we reported about two cemeteries, namely Ala-Archa in the city center and the one in the South-West of the city. By studying the cemeteries, we could observe the changing demographics in Bishkek over its history.24 It has never been a straightforward process of introducing novelty in the area of intervention of a ‘social innovation’ project. If in the case of K ­ yrgyzstan attitude of the municipal decision-makers could be easily predicted, in Kazakhstan the introduction of new project ideas revealed yet unknown challenges that had been mushrooming as the project was implemented. Rinad Temirbekov explains: In Magistan region we have tried to improve primary and secondary education in kindergartens and schools. In the beginning colleagues tried to introduce a new education methodology, but it did not work well because a lot of other issues related to violence had been already existed between teachers and students. When it had become known, it was decided to invite psychologists to work with teachers and students. After this we could break the ice and demonstrate the value of the new methodology and encourage teachers to learn it. It is difficult to call innovation, but it was a attempt to adapt.25 In Uzbekistan, the UNDP-supported ‘SIPs have been aimed at either i­ nnovative application of existing practices or offering novel solutions to the existing problems.26 Generally, the newness of the projects was treated subjectively without a comprehensive research undertaken before accepting any project idea. Donor organizations were usually aware that ideas of the SIPs had been tested outside of the region and were not therefore entirely new. However, they believed that adapting those ideas to the Central Asian social context would constitute a new

64  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

approach to the existing social problems. Another approach to newness is when a new social relationship is established between societal actors that have not previously collaborated. One example of such relationships has been demonstrated by ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I supporting local public councils and their cooperation with local CSOs. In other words, newness in the case of Central Asian countries was not limited to the creation of a new product or service, it was sufficient to either offer a contextually new idea or practice that is able to solve an existing problem or generate a solution in a new social relationship. Thus (unintentionally) SIPs in terms of their newness (e.g., contextual ­newness) fit in the requirement of social practice theory. Sometimes, however, projects supported by donors, the government and CSOs could hardly meet the criterion of newness. For instance, fundraising, social media marketing projects,27 developing knowledge products for CSOs and supporting volunteers’ web platforms28 could not be considered as ‘new social practices’. In rare cases, the way some projects were being implemented left the impression that donors had not done their proper review and research and supported them for the sake of funding any idea. 2.2.2 People-centeredness and inclusiveness: greater involvement of local citizens in problem solution People (human) – centeredness, in the sense of finding solutions to social problems by those immediately affected by them (i.e., a solution invention must be nurtured by those experiencing the problem), is a concept embedded in ­Central Asia’s SIPs which assures their meeting of this criterion. The human-centeredness principle, i.e. the inclusion of communities and their individual members in addressing issues they are experiencing, has been achieved by SIPs, enabling people to identify the issue, design a solution and apply it themselves rather than wait for a solution offered by the government or a donor. This alone constitutes a huge change for the people who have not previously enjoyed either the right or an opportunity to decide for themselves on pressing social issues. The people (or human) – centered approach was applied to all SIPs in ­Central Asia. It was a priority element in designing SIPs supported by USAID, UNDP, UNICEF, ARGO, Eurasia Foundation and the Astana Hub. This was mainly due to donors’ intentions to design their development projects differently, by engaging directly with individuals and communities experiencing development challenges. In this context, Kaisha Atakhanova says: “We do not even go with our program to the South of Kazakhstan. We understand that it is not correct to go to the village with our agenda”.29 Half-joking, the Head of Central Asia Foundation of Central Asia, Temirbekov says: “By itself, the fact that the person is in the center of any activities, is already an innovation for our countries”.30 Meanwhile, all organizations involved in SIPs, including government entities such as Astana Hub in Kazakhstan, understood that as Bakushev of Astana Hub highlighted: “Innovations are needed to improve peoples’ life”.31

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  65

Plenty of examples of SIPs from Central Asian countries shed light on how the people-centric principle was being applied. Rinad Temirbekov highlighted the program on the renovation of public spaces in rural areas. In the course of the program’s implementation, people themselves decided what they needed and applied, jointly with the local government, for a grant to the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia. This was a civic initiative designed in cooperation with the local government.32 In practice, however, the people-centric criterion has not been always ­consistently applied in Central Asia. The primary reason for this was the common conviction of the decision-makers in the absolute superiority of their knowledge about the problem. Some of them believed that people do not have enough expertise to design and offer solutions. Dr. Nasritdinov mentions in this regard: When we had our first City Forum, the architects straightforwardly said that they are experts and citizens do not have enough expertise to decide anything regarding the city planning. We intend to go away from such a Soviet approach and work with communities in order to incorporate their needs.33 But the decision-makers were not the only ones to resist SIPs people-centric approach. ‘Green Bishkek’ project mentioned by Dr. Nasritdinov is a vivid example of it. Dr. Nasritdinov recalls: Green Bishkek project is exceptional because we applied h ­ uman-centered approach. In fact, all green lines (defining green zones), red lines (defining places where construction works are prohibited) and blue lines (borders of rivers and lakes) were mapped in the city plan prepared by the city architecture department and city council, but were not accepted by people due to the negative image of the city council and resistance of the local businessmen, who did not want to let some areas of the city to be reserved for green areas instead of construction. So the plan was cancelled by the court. The employees at the city architecture department told us at a meeting that their mistake was to try to design and impose the plan without consulting with local communities. Our approach is different. We have two components in it. First, we have planned over fifteen meetings with communities, city activists, bikers, rollers, athletes, local inhabitants, etc. This is because we were saying from the beginning that in order for the idea to get accepted by the people, it should be articulated by the people. People should be involved in discussions; people should have the ownership of this idea.34 One good example of a local ‘social innovation’ project in Uzbekistan developed employing the human-centered principle is Infobox launched for the Bukhara local government It has allowed local citizens to provide information

66  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

to the local government about the local communities where they live. The project’s goal was to solve the problem of the lack of information about Bukhara’s various communities and locations, that had no Internet presence nor were marked on maps (and consequently left out from local government’s development programs). By allowing for the crowdsourcing of missing information, Infobox SIP planned to involve individuals and communities to address the lack of information issue themselves. Since Bukhara is also a well-known tourist destination in Uzbekistan, the problem of lacking information has also become a challenge for tourism development. Many tourists sited in Bukhara could not be reached by tourists because they were not been marked on available maps and/or on the local government’s webpages. In this regard, the leader of the project Umid Gafurov says that the idea of Infobox is to create an online database which will help local people to find the needed information and save their time. It is based on the Web 2.0 platform, meaning users can add information about places they have visited which are still not on maps or websites.35 Thus, Infobox has been developed in a human-centered way, by putting individuals (users) at the center of the project (web platform) to source data to be later used for their own and the wider societal good. Another example is the E-Diary SIP implemented in a school of a Tashkent local community. Ulugbek Musabekov, the leader of this project, made a preliminary analysis in one of the schools of the local community and identified the problem of the lack of parents’ involvement in the process of their children’s education. Being busy at work, parents were unable to regularly track the performance of their children at school, while teachers also wanted to regularly inform parents on their children’s progress. The standard way of doing this so far has been through a paper-based diary. However, this has been an old-fashioned and inefficient approach, one that did not allow for the regular (everyday) reporting about the children’s performance. Musabekov, a person living in this community who had previously attended the same school, was aware of this problem. He collaborated with the school management, parents and teachers for the introduction of an E-Diaryco-designed by him to parents and teachers. He allowed parents and teachers to co-develop the project adding E-Diary elements they thought were required. That way Musabekov’s SIP has identified a problem allowing those facing it to partake in the development of a solution. As he himself noted, “the project is aimed towards satisfying the needs of the local community we are working with”.36 Indeed, his project has implied a focus on the needs of people who supposedly used the E-Diary, and therefore is human-centered. A similar approach was applied in the cases of other SIPs. The ingenuity and inclusiveness of the people-centered approach lays also in its ability to involve previously neglected persons or groups, by allowing them to

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  67

partake in developing solutions. In other words, the problems are not solved for them, but rather by them because the people having difficulties know better than anyone else about these difficulties. The inclusiveness of SIPs was also ref lected in the inclusion of people with disabilities in project development and implementation as the UNDP and UNDP/UNV Project assumed that people belonging to vulnerable groups do not usually fully benefit from development projects: therefore, several SIPs have been designed especially for them. For instance, Lola Yuldasheva’s project was designed for girls with disabilities of a Fergana local community. Talking about her ‘Fantasy Club’ project for girls with disabilities, Yuldasheva mentions that “each participant was able to share their creative ideas and talent”.37 Yuldasheva is a civil society activist who lives in Fergana and is aware of the problems faced by persons with disabilities who are usually excluded from social life and deprived of any economic opportunities. Girls with disabilities were in an even worse situation, and she decided to launch a project to help them to socialize and share their skills. Now girls participating in the ‘Fantasy Club’ are able to obtain sewing and handcraft skills, creating unique products by using their imagination. Later these products can be sold to generate income for the girls. In this regard, Khamidova, Manager of Small Grants Program of the UNDP/UNV Project, mentioned that the small grants program has been designed to support SIPs solving concrete problems of real people. She says: We wanted to go small. We wanted to tackle small issues that at first glance do not look like serious and big problems, but indeed, these problems are something ordinary people deal with on a daily base. We wanted these people to speak up about the problems and offer solutions that they think will work. You know, we in Tashkent, we in UNDP, we know nothing about these problems. People do.38 Certainly, employing a human-centered design in SIPs has allowed for identifying social problems and including previously neglected individuals into the process of their solution. The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and ­Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project has favored this approach when ­selecting SIPs to support and has provided seed funding for such projects through the Small Grants Program. In this context, Emiliya Asadova from the UNDP says: We at the UNDP are not experts in the field anymore. As you well know, and as user-centered design of social innovations tells us, people experiencing the problems are the experts in this problem. We should ask them how they want these problems to be solved.39 The people-centered design of SIPs relates to the social practice theory which allows the invention to happen at a local level,40 and in this regard,

68  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

the theory has proved to fully work. In practice, new elements introduced by new p­ eople-centered projects have allowed for focused interventions into problematic areas as articulated by those experiencing the problems. In fact, as suggested by Shove et al. novelty can come out of any of the key elements of social practice, namely physicality (sociality and physicality of carried out practices), materiality (artifacts, things, technologies in and for social practices), and competences (know-how, practical knowledge, background knowledge, and others).41 Certain success of people-centered SIPs in Central Asia does not mean that some specific aspects of novel social practice elements will easily connect to the existing elements, and social innovation imitations will be achieved only over time.42 But SIPs have already encouraged people-centered inventions which have been implemented locally, and through further imitation could eventually get institutionalized and diffused, creating new social practices. 2.2.3  Networking and collaboration: major challenges Networking and collaboration, as per social practice theory, have implied the constellation and collaboration of different actors for the generation and progress of ‘social innovation’ projects. This criterion has been partly met in ­Central Asia where donors of SIPs have been trying to establish relationships with an array of organizations to ensure SIPs are generated by diverse stakeholders and to eventually achieve further institutionalization of SIPs. Despite active networking with the government, CSOs and international donors, institutionalization of ‘social innovation’ projects has proved to be challenging. In particular, collaboration between the government and community leaders was not easy, and as a rule, the government declined to support SIPs. Despite challenging networking opportunities, actors in all Central Asian countries supporting ‘social innovation’ projects were seeking stable cooperative ties with business, international organizations and especially with national governments. Kaisha Atakhanova, Chief of Party, Partnership for Innovations (P4I), Civil Society Development Association ARGO, says that: “ARGO understood the need to work with local partners. For the last four years they have connected to five organizations in the region, in every post-Soviet Central Asian country”.43 These five organizations are five CSOs (sometimes also GONGOs44) in Central Asian countries implementing SIPs within the P4I program. They have been connected by the ARGO’s network of partners and are in charge of introducing projects funded by P4I. This is the essence of ARGO’s work in Central Asia. Another case is the collaboration of UNICEF and the Astana Hub in Kazakhstan. Astana Hub is supported by the Kazakh government and its employees know the value of collaboration with the government to allow the

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  69

project to survive beyond the prototyping phase. Bakushev and Egeubaeva from Astana Hub emphasized that: “it is important to involve the government because although some projects supported by donors do survive, but further government support to sustain the projects is very important as only 10–20 percent of them can do without it”45 Not all organizations supporting SIPs were optimistic about collaboration with national governments transferring their work to the local level persuing connections with local governments, local CSOs and individuals. Although the law requires that donors provide funding to legal entities only Rinad Temirbekov highlights Eurasia Foundation’s new model of promoting networking for social innovation: I think now individuals should be the drivers of innovations. The others will follow-up. We can support organizations, not individuals, but we have examples of supporting initiative groups. For instance, in ‘­Accessible Kazakhstan’ initiative we supported the network of individual entrepreneurs from nineteen cities.46 Indeed, despite the clear necessity to align with the national government to sustain SIPs, evidence from post-Soviet Central Asian countries demonstrates that the degree of cooperation with the state varies. Usually, CSOs, international donor organizations and business enterprises partner quite well for the benefit of SIPs. One more example of this is the Media and Social Innovation Lab in Tajikistan. Angelika Popova from Internews recalls the experiences from the Lab in 2017 demonstrating how its organizers regarded the roles of business and the government: We always invite state organizations and business partners to the events we organize. They participate as business partners, offering, for instance, internet services, as TCell did. Government representatives come to open our events. But, to participate in the projects, we work with CSOs and after this we offer grants to them for projects’ implementation. But if partners are able to involve state organizations in the implementation of their projects, this will be always supported by us. Project grants are usually limited to $3–4.000.47 Undoubtedly, partnership settings in different countries of Central Asia are different. Temirbekov emphasized that they at Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia “work with other CSOs, Resource Centers in the regions, local governments and private companies. EF works with local governments because this corresponds to the principles of the Foundation to work on the grassroots level”.48 As a rule, the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia has been hesitant about cooperation with the government, and the primary reason for this was the lack of political will in receiving recommendations from the ­non-governmental sector.

70  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

Networking options were certainly not limited to the government. In Kyrgyzstan SILK intended to work with IT experts and academicians. As in other countries of Central Asia, in Kyrgyzstan SILK looked for partners fitting to the tasks SILK was planning to accomplish. As SILK’s Director says: We collaborate with IT specialists who will develop and provide IT support for the Dashboard. Also, one of our Masters’ students who is writing her MA thesis about smart cities is involved in our work because it is beneficial both for her and for us. Recently we, namely our students from the course about redesigning public spaces, have started collaborating with the city architecture department and Mr. Marat Jaroev, the Chief Architect, over the concept of the project “Kok Bishkek” (Blue-Green Bishkek). We have also met with the government agency dealing with the General Plan of Bishkek. So, now we have three organizations to implement a project which will integrate all green spaces in the city.49 In Kyrgyzstan, much like in Kazakhstan, social innovators have acknowledged that without a political will a ‘social innovation’ project would not be sustainable. Clearly, networking should have been serving this role in the long term. Another goal SILK was pursuing has been similar to the P4I program in Uzbekistan, namely bridging the state and the civic sector.50 Dr. Nasritdinov from SILK summarizes their approach that in many ways corresponds to those in other countries of the region, as follows: When we talk about networking and collaboration, we mean ­cooperation with the state, business, local governments, and citizens. For instance, in our project “Blue-green Bishkek” three government organizations are involved: (1) Bishkek Main Architecture Department; (2) Kyrgyz Reseach Institute for City Planning and (3) Mayor’s office of Bishkek. Plus, city activists have joined the project, namely “Archa”, “Move Green”, “Biom”, “Peshkom” (On foot), “Urban initiatives” groups. We also try to connect with businesses. We planned a meeting with Mr. Daniyar ­A manaliev, the head of Ololo Co-working spaces. We also started connecting with international organizations. We had a brief conversation with the World Bank. In Central Asia, collaboration and networking works in accordance with its rules. For instance, Chief Architect of Bishkek met the Advisor to the President and told him about our “Green Bishkek” project. Clearly, without a political will all our plans will be only a nice piece of paper. In our collaboration we emphasize a joint work rather than resistance to authorities. We see ourselves as a bridge between the authorities and the citizens.51 In Uzbekistan, the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project also intended to establish cooperation with different actors which has not always worked out well. However, as will be further discussed, collaboration with the National

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  71

Library of Uzbekistan and the Center for Youth Initiatives was established. In Uzbekistan, networking with different actors involved in small-scale SIPs has been the priority for the UNDP. According to the MoU between the UNDP/UNV Project and the Center for Youth Initiatives: “the purpose of activities was to provide a framework for cooperation and to facilitate collaboration between parties through (…) social innovations interventions”.52 In Uzbekistan, ‘social innovation’ projects had better chances of moving forward if they had the support of different governmental, private and/or non-governmental organizations. This feature of SIPs in Uzbekistan that will be discussed further is similar to the evidence obtained from developed, developing and other post-communist countries. In fact, as in the case with other developing and post-communist countries, the government support of SIPs in Uzbekistan is crucial for their success. In this context, Kholosboev, leader of the Peers Club Project held in a local community of Gulistan, recalls that the “fundamental step for the planning of new projects was finding the ground for uniting local youth with local authorities”.53 Kholosboev’s ‘social innovation’ project was aimed towards knowledge sharing and coaching in Gulistan. Based on evidence from the field, Kholosboev, who lived in Gulistan, identified that knowledge is more efficiently acknowledged if it is shared among peers. Therefore, he offered the idea of a Peers Club where people (especially, but not exclusively young people) could meet on their community premises and educate each other on various topics. To make the project happen, Kholosboev needed the permission and support from the local authorities. Therefore, he tended to collaborate with them and managed to actually find a local partner. Networks and collaborations which occasionally emerged while implementing ‘social innovation’ projects were workable and helped to introduce projects to various public and private organizations. For instance, Veronika Polyakova from the National Library of Uzbekistan claimed that “they at the National Library even benefited from having more volunteers who started coming after we had cooperated with the UNDP Project”.54 UNDP’s Emiliya Asadova recalls another example related to the eco-bags project implemented with the ‘Korzinka.uz’ retail chain. She said: “Korzinka.uz still has eco-bags produced by the social enterprise supported by UNDP on their shelves. This project we launched together in 2014”.55 Indeed, this UNDP-supported project helped to connect ‘Ipak suzana’ social enterprise with ‘Korzinka.uz’ retail chain in Tashkent. Owing to that project, habitually unemployed women had an opportunity to work for ‘Ipak suzana’ manufacturing eco-bags and generating income for their families. Reusable eco-bags instead of usual disposable plastic bags have contributed to shaping the environmentally friendly behavior model as well as saved people’s money that would otherwise have been spent on plastic bags. From the UNDP perspective, working in partnership has always been a strategic priority. The organization has always been willing to partner with the government and local (public and private) organizations for capacity

72  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

building to ensure that SIPs will have been absorbed and replicated by them. Therefore the UNDP/UNV project, operating within UNDP’s Direct Implementation Modality (without an attached national partner), was looking for partnerships with local organizations. Partnering with local organizations and the government has not been always possible, however, which was leading to further problems with SIPs’ scaling. Theoretically speaking, Howaldt et al. (2014) mentioned that “networking is a key component for social innovation to happen since it is regarded to be a social practice prompted by certain actors or their constellation” (p. 26). This theoretical element of social practice theory has been considered, but as it is evident from the discussion, it has not been fully accomplished. To recall, Mulgan and Murray have also emphasized the role of relationships among different actors as the ground for generating social innovations (Mulgan and Murray, 2010). Strictly speaking, the UNDP has tried to introduce new practices by partnering with governments (and local organizations). This should be happening through repetition in order to bring about change. However, the partnership has been limited to a couple of local organizations and has lacked permanent government support, so social practice theory has had limited implementation in terms of this particular social innovation criterion. 2.2.3.1  Lack of government support of SIPs In developed, developing and post-communist countries, governments have supported social innovations in priority areas where solutions to pressing problems were needed (e.g., unemployment or poverty). In Uzbekistan, SIPs had to be also supported by the national (and/or local) government to be successfully implemented. In practice, however, the government declined to support ‘social innovation’ projects. This trend has been also observed in other Central Asian countries and is already discussed above. For instance, Gafurov recalls that in the case of government, the Infobox project can help them [local governments] to interact with local people through internet - answer their questions and solve their problems. This did not happen though. Now, I do not plan to continue with the project.56 Khamidova also acknowledged that “several SIPs have been cancelled due to lacking government support”.57 Another example of the lack of government support is a project dealing with the promotion of local tourism in social networks. The project has applied a new approach to promoting local tourism by involving local communities in taking pictures of remarkable sites located in their regions not yet covered by, standard tourist itineraries. If successful, the project could have brought more tourists to the yet undiscovered tourist destinations in ­Uzbekistan and benefit local communities allowing them to provide services

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  73

to the tourists and thus generate income. The first stage of the project was supported by the UNDP but was not taken over by local governments. The UNDP/UNV Project Manager Bokhodir Ayupov says about this project: We have equipped selected participants of the project with cameras and USB sticks providing Internet conection. They could use them to take pictures and post them on social networks, Trip Advisor, and other outlets. We taught them how to position their communities as tourist destinations. We piloted cooperation between our participants from Djizzak, jointly with the local government of Zaamin in Djizzak region, to promote the beauties of Zaamin. Unfortunately, once we stopped funding the project, it continued operating for a little bit on participants’ enthusiasm, and at a later state no local government expressed interest in replicating it.58 The examples mentioned above prove the fact of the lack of government support. In practice, SIPs in Uzbekistan did a good job of nurturing ideas. Those ideas, or inventions, have not been, however, always picked up by local organizations or governments to institutionalize them and turn them into an everyday routine. For instance, Asadova also points out that the lack of support from local organizations has been a systemic problem for SIPs in Uzbekistan. She says: “you yourself know what kind of problems we have had. In some cases, the project ‘died’ if local organizations did not want to pick it up”.59 Thus, the lack of that kind of support inhibited possible positive effects from SIPs. Moreover, it also did not allow for imitation of the inventions and prevented their progressing along the full cycle of true social innovation generation to create new social settings (Howaldt et al., 2014). 2.2.3.2 Occasional cooperation between leaders of SIPs and local organizations Since there was no systemic government support, the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project had always been eager to establish cooperative ties with potential partner organizations in Uzbekistan. The Memorandum of Understanding signed between the UNDP and the Center stated that “the parties, on a regular basis, keep each other informed of and consult on matters of common interest, which in their opinion are likely to lead to mutual collaboration”.60 Needless to say, the UNDP was looking for cooperation out of necessity to further institutionalize SIPs. In this regard, UNDP’s web page dedicated to the UNDP/UNV Project activities stated: “social innovation lab or debates training have been developed and implemented in close collaboration with well-established partners who can guarantee the continuity of project activities”.61 Occasional cooperation with local organizations has been sometimes ­pursued by local SIPs’ leaders. As Kholosboev says about his project: “this

74  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

project [Peers Club] was established in cooperation with the Institute for the Monitoring of the Civil Society”.62 The leader of a small-scale ‘social innovation’ project in Fergana, Yuldasheva, mentioned that she cooperated with a public school in her community for a classroom provision for girls with disabilities. She says: “I cooperated with a local public school to provide us with a classroom for our activities. We needed a nice place where girls could come and take courses”.63 This is how project leaders could, sometimes, collaborate with local organizations. Such alliances were irregular and possible only occasionally. As the literature suggests, in developing and post-communist countries cooperation for SIPs usually occurred between the government and CSOs. In Uzbekistan, occasional cooperation usually happened between the UNDP, leaders of small-scale SIPs and local organizations. Collaboration was only possible if the UNDP or project leaders had personal contacts in local organizations. Usually, as local civil society activists, project leaders had some experience of working with these organizations. Sometimes personal contacts with public organizations (e.g., public schools) have been used. The UNDP could also connect project leaders to partner organizations that used to cooperate with the UNDP. Otherwise, any kind of alliance with local organizations for implementing a ‘social innovation’ project would require obtaining permission from government agencies which was a long and bureaucratic process. Therefore, cooperation with the government (local government) was challenging, if at all possible. This was a challenge for the local diffusion of inventions. Therefore, in Uzbekistan, small-scale SIPs in the form of local i­ nterventions injected new elements into existing social reality, to further connect them with elements already existing in the post-Soviet social system. ­However, the UNDP could only support and nurture inventions that have been implemented locally by SIPs 2.2.4 Localness of projects and focus on governance domain: better opportunities for working at the community level All SIPs in Central Asia have been launched locally. As per social practice theory, they have addressed micro-level problems, satisfying the local needs of individuals. Donors have also tried to go local with ‘social innovation’ projects because they wanted to primarily tackle local problems. They also believed that if local solutions are successful, these solutions can be later scaled up and become country-wide change-makers. For instance, the manager of the UNDP/UNV project Ayupov says in this regard: “all projects, everything we did was implemented on the local level”.64 Dr. Nasritdinov from SILK mentions with regards to SILK: From the beginning, we decided that SILK will specifically focus on the urban context. Therefore, we look at social issues primarily in Bishkek.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  75

For this, our team has divided the available budget into six small projects, namely (1) walkability; (2) social capital; (3) industrial zones; (4) public art; (5) researching and mapping urban poverty; (6) innovative tools and methods for urban research (our colleague from the Urban Initiatives, Altynay Nogoibaeva is creating a database of such instruments).65 Certainly, in Central Asia, SIPs were usually driven by CSOs (international and local) or/and international donors with little involvement of the government. The accepted mode was when CSOs’ initiatives are funded by the donor organizations through the civil society supporting programs. This made the collaboration between them possible. Clearly, ‘social innovation’ projects were open for participation of the government and business. There are exceptional cases in Kazakhstan when Astana Hub – a government-­affiliated organization – has joined UNICEF in establishing a Social Innovation Lab to help children. Another example is a Bishkek-based SILK combining donor’s funding and ‘brains’ of an academic institution – the American U ­ niversity of Central Asia. Dr. Nasritdinov from SILK says that “they tried to keep multi-­ sectoral approach at their work, engaging with different stakeholders, like local authorities, architectures, urban planning experts etc. The intention was to apply maximally inclusive approach”.66 But those are the outliers from the general trend indicating that ‘social innovation’ projects are civic sector driven. Thus, sector neutrality is not the case for ‘social innovation’ projects in Central Asia. Despite this evidence, representatives of CSOs and donors believed that SIPs while being locally implemented should be driven by a collaboration of several sectors67 and not concentrated only in the civic domain.68 Moreover, donors realized that investing in CSOs as drivers of ‘social innovations’ is not efficient. Now, they believe that ‘social innovations’ could be citizens-driven and with more engagement with business. In this regard, Daiirbekova, leading the USAID Social Innovation in Central Asia program, says: Our experience demonstrates that the majority of institutionally ­organized CSOs are not in the position to generate innovations. Many innovations are generated by the civic activists, ordinary people. When we did not have any chance to work with anyone except CSOs, we were telling that there is a person sitting in the kitchen and seeing the problem and knowing how to solve it, but nobody listens to him/her. It is good that now we have social networks, we can see that people offer their ideas, they are not members of CSOs, they are ordinary citizens with creativity, who could find solutions. Now, we do not very much rely on CSOs. Especially, from old-fashioned CSOs established in 1990s or 2000s, difficult to get something new from them. Now, business sector is the most innovative, also in terms of solving social issues. For instance, to fight corruption on the roads, government will strengthen road traffic services, but business will introduce a video registration.69

76  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

Also, as social practice theory, scholarly literature and evidence from ‘social innovation’ projects in Central Asia suggest, ‘social innovation’ projects were usually conducted in the specific domain – governance. These projects addressed issues in local governments and communities. In Uzbekistan in 2012–2014, though the UNDP-supported projects were aimed towards local communities and governments, as we already know individuals in the governments (national and local) considered them to be very sensitive because they were aimed at governance issues. Therefore, the UNDP/UNV Project supported ‘social innovation’ projects that were operating on the local level, only after approaching national governments. These projects have been regarded by the government as being something less sensitive and aimed towards providing technical assistance to local governments. As was already mentioned, receiving government permission was not a speedy process. After the project’s approval by relevant government authorities, the ‘social innovation’ project was usually piloted by local governments and/or communities jointly with ‘social innovation’ projects’ leaders. This was the only option to get government institutions in Uzbekistan involved in the local SIPs or to receive their permission to introduce a project. In this regard, Asadova confirms that “doing ‘social innovation’ projects, was probably, the only option for us at UNDP to work on a local level with local communities”.70 This was different from the experiences in developing and post-communist countries, where, as the literature suggests, social innovations were primarily launched as local initiatives without government intervention. These local social innovations could, however, later be borrowed by the government, or applied in the government’s priority areas, where certain social problems needed resolution. In Uzbekistan, SIPs, despite difficulties faced in implementation, have played positive roles. They ensured the greater participation of individuals in solving their local daily problems by involving them in activities of SIPs through creating new social relationships. For instance, Infobox that was planned for the local government in Bukhara was designed in accordance with this idea. As Gafurov says: “one of the main ideas of Infobox was to link government and local people, so that they can interact with each other using the website, or, later, an app”.71 Musabekov, who led the E-Diary project in a Tashkent local community, emphasized that his project was primarily aimed at the local community. He tells about his project: “the project was aimed to satisfy the needs of the local community we were working with”.72 Kholosboev, the leader of the Peers Club project in the local community in Gulistan says that his project’s purpose was to empower people locally: “without any doubt our project empowered local people”.73 In other words, SIPs were aimed at local issues and intended to resolve these issues by assuring the greater participation of individuals and generating social relationships between them and local organizations (e.g., local governments and/ or communities). This is how the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project ­envisioned their work on the local governance level. Documents analyzed for

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  77

the purpose of this study confirmed that the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ intended to work on the local level, closer to local communities. An MoU between the UNDP and the Center for Youth Initiatives provides that the purpose of the cooperation between the two organizations was “to mobilize local youth, empower youth through social innovations, and provide seed funds for projects aimed at community improvement”.74 All in all, it is clear that ‘social innovation’ projects supported by the UNDP, the UNDP/UNV Project, USAID, UNICEF, SILK and Astana Hub were primarily focused on the local needs of the project-related activities in governments and communities, through promoting ‘social innovations’. As per social practice theory, these projects started by addressing micro-level problems (Howaldt et al., 2014). They did so by encouraging the greater participation of users/citizens in ‘social innovation’ projects. Sometimes this was achieved through involving individuals in engineering works and ICTs. 2.2.5  Towards the use of technology in ‘social innovation’ projects The use of technology is a particular feature of SIPs in Central Asia. In Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the opinions to use ICTs was ranged from ‘not necessary75 but desirable’76 to ‘compulsory’ 77 in SIPs. In ­Uzbekistan, ‘social innovation’ projects introduced in 2012–2014 used ICTs on rare occasions. In that sense, a clear trend towards designing SIPs with the use of ICTs is emerging in the region. For instance, Dr. Nasritdinov tells that “Social innovations should not always have ICT component. However, the Dashboard [of Bishkek] is an ICT solution”.78 In Kazakhstan, Astana Hub due to its mandate strongly supported the ICT component within SIPs. Janerke Egeubaeva highlighted the role of Astana Hub as the “operator of the projects selected by the ministries”.79 One example of a project supported by Astana Hub demonstrates the Hub’s approach towards SIPs: We have finalized operational component of one platform. This platform consists of interactive map encompassing various elements, including the one dedicated to children. The map covers the places for kids with traumatic problems in order for parents and their children can use this map. This map can be also used by people with disabilities. For social innovation lab we were focusing on open-source solutions. Commercialization of the projects was considered, but in a different way, as a traffic or ads.80 Talgat Bakushev adds another couple of examples from other projects that show that Astana Hub supports projects with an ICT element: Astana Hub’s vision is to plan the training of 12 000 teachers throughout Kazakhstan in IT literacy and inclusive education. Another project,

78  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

‘Smart Grades’, trains kids in handling money issues through a mobile application. A pilot project is planned to be launched in one school in Nur-Sultan. Certainly, Astana Hub is interested in commercialization of ICT projects, since it is also one of KPI the government puts for us. However, we also support ICT components of social projects. Therefore, if there is a project that has an ICT element and an opportunity for scaling, we are ready to support it.81 Internews also extensively applied ICTs in its projects within the Media and Social Innovation Lab. Angelika Popova mentioned the “website of craftsmen to advertise their products”.82 She pointed out that during the Social ­Innovation Labs of 2019 and 2020 Internews “conducted surveys among CSOs and ICT experts, etc. to find out about the most pressing social issues. In 2019 we supported projects for people with disabilities. In 2020, we ­supported educational projects”.83 She highlighted that “without ICT one cannot introduce innovations, without CSOs it is not possible to find out about social issues, without mass media no one can spread the information”.84 Clearly, the use of technology is a particular feature of SIPs. In Uzbekistan in 2012–2014, SIPs used ICTs on rare occasions. In that sense, the criterion of using technology in SIPs has not been fully met in Uzbekistan. In fact, social innovations should not necessarily be high-tech solutions: in Uzbekistan, the biggest share of the SIPs were low-tech initiatives. Only 11 small-scale SIPs out of 33 were using the technology of any kind [ICTs or engineering works].85 In Uzbekistan’s case, this was most likely due to the low coverage and speed of the Internet and relatively underdeveloped ICT infrastructure that ICT-based SIPs were relatively few. Out of 11 small-scale projects, only four used ICTs. Other seven projects have rather involved engineering works to address the need of the local communities.86 Another reason for having less ICT-based ‘social innovation’ projects is that the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project tended to operate more smallscale SIPs in rural areas of Uzbekistan, involving individuals coming from these areas. Pressing social issues in Uzbekistan’s rural regions did not often require ICT-based solutions. In this regard, Khamidova claims: We wanted to go outside of Tashkent. A lot of things are going on in the capital [in Tashkent]. Youth have more opportunities here. But what about rural youth? What about rural problems? We wanted to give them a chance. We have even prioritized the selection of projects from rural areas. They have very basic problems with water, electricity and heating. If any project was addressing those issues, we picked it up.87 One such ‘social innovation’ project was a ‘shower and water supply’ designed for farms within local communities of the Bukhara region. It was intended to be used in rural areas to preserve and heat water, setting up a water supply

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  79

system allowing the efficient collection, saving and distribution of water for hygienic purposes. The project was operated by a group of young people led by Ikhtiyor Kamalov. Knowing about the issue of scarce water resources in rural regions of Uzbekistan, Kamalov and his team from Bukhara region came up with an invention which was helpful for saving and efficiently using scarce water resources. They planned to equip local farms with this system, helping them to cope with the problem of water scarcity and assisting them in the efficient use of water to meet the daily needs of farmers spending most of their time on farms. ICT-based SIPs were predominantly implemented in urban areas, where access to internet was relatively less problematic. Good examples are the ­Infobox project in Bukhara and E-Diary project in Tashkent. Generally speaking, involving in small-scale projects was a novelty introduced by the UNDP in the course of the local development assistance in Uzbekistan. These projects were supported but not operated by the UNDP which did not even intervene in the process of generating them. Later in 2019, ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide movement and P4I projects supported 25 projects that mostly applied ICT elements in form of a website (website for recruiting volunteers) or a chat bot (to receive psychological support during COVID-19). 2.2.6 Social impact: a different understanding and an assessment problem Any social innovation is supposed to make a social impact. According to social practice theory, since social innovations operate on micro, meso and macro levels, they can also make impacts on those levels. On the micro level, social innovations can address local problems. However, the ultimate goal of social innovation is to enable social change on a macro level. As for social impact, every organization acknowledged88 that any social innovation should make it89 since social innovations should address existing social needs.90 Nevertheless, it was believed by organizations implementing ‘social innovation’ projects that the projects cannot always demonstrate immediate social impact.91 It was never an enduring process of designing ‘social innovation’ projects that should make a social impact. Moreover, assessing social impact was not an intrinsic element of the projects. For instance, Mr. Sadonshoev from Internews says that they did not have a chance to monitor the projects that Internews has supported and launched92 Dr. Nasritdinov from SILK in Kyrgyzstan adds to that: Ideally, social innovation should have social impact, but at the same time we see our contribution as modest. In the framework of what we do within our projects, social impact is not our end goal. […] We understand that social impact might happen, but it also might not happen. Social impact is not measured; SILK works on projects-based approach to change the existing status quo (baseline) to the ‘new reality’.93

80  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

In other words, in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the social impact criterion was acknowledged, but not met due to the lack of assessment tools enabling a clear understanding of whether SIPs are actually making the impact. Neither donors nor the CSOs or partners from the state or business sides were concerned about comprehensive measurement instruments. Usually, a very primitive approach was applied, allowing a simple comparison of ‘new’ (after the project’s intervention) and ‘old’ (before the project’s intervention) realities. SIPs implemented in Uzbekistan in 2012–2014 and later in 2019 were also not assessed for the social impact made with adequate measurement tools by any project operator, so this criterion has not hitherto been met. In fact, no data has been found to confirm that the need for measuring the impact of SIPs was articulated in project documents or other sources. This was a shared shortcoming of SIPs in Central Asia and numerous developed, developing and post-communist countries. Moreover, the perspective of the UNDP with regard to social impact from SIPs in Uzbekistan was different from that in other countries where social innovations had also been introduced. In Uzbekistan, social impact from the ‘social innovation’ project was regarded as the identification of a pressing social challenge and the creation of new social relationships to address this challenge. 2.2.6.1 Social impact as the identification of challenges and the creation of new social relationships The UNDP and the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project regarded social impact from ‘social innovation’ projects as being the identification of social challenges, and the establishment of new social relationships to tackle these challenges. For instance, Khamidova mentions the following criteria applied to SIPs: “first, existing practices used in a new manner (new partnership, new elements and new combinations); second, changing life in local communities through identification of their problems and offering new solutions”.94 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project followed the logic of problem identification and the creation of relationships to solve the problem. Actually, the UNDP/UNV Project could help to establish such relationships which would otherwise be impossible. For instance, the UNDP/UNV Project could connect a person with a disability with the staff of the National Library of Uzbekistan to create audio and video materials for the deaf. Ayupov recalls this case: The National Library wanted to have publicly available video and audio material for the deaf, but they did not know how to produce them. We at UNDP knew a guy, Andrey, who had participated in our other projects and who had some issues with hearing. We asked him, and he agreed to help with the audio material. We thought it was a good idea if these materials were prepared by a person who experiences the problem.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  81

Andrey was this kind of person. He could tell what kind of video and audio material persons like him would need. He could understand how they should be better designed. The national Library would only benefit from a person like Andrey. So, what we did was we connected Andrey to the National Library, and he started helping them to produce video and audio materials. This is what we at the UNDP wanted. People identify the problem they have, and through new connections, the problem could be solved. Relationships between Andrey and the National Library now allowed the production of something that would be useful for many individuals with impaired hearing.95 The project with the National Library demonstrates that the UNDP was ­looking for project ideas corresponding to the above-mentioned condition. This social impact perspective was different to the one in developing and post-communist countries where, as evidence from these countries suggests, social impact was regarded as something that has satisfied existing social needs. In the case of other SIPs, for instance, Infobox, E-Diary, Fantasy Club or Peers Club, the impact from the projects was intended through establishing social relationships between people, and/or people and organizations, that otherwise would not have been established. Infobox implied the collaboration of individuals and local authorities, the E-Diary project intended to establish cooperation between parents, teachers and students, the Fantasy Club project encouraged networking between individuals with disabilities and the local public school, and the Peers Club allowed for a partnership among peers in a local community. In other words, the intention to network and collaborate with individuals, local organizations and governments, was required not only for the implementation and scaling of SIPs but also for making a social impact. It was believed by the UNDP that these newly establish social relationships would continue to work after the completion of SIPs, bringing about the desired change. The UNDP intended to nurture new social relationships which, according to Domanski, are about social relations and not only about the social impact (Domanski, 2017)-currently the core issue in the scholarly debate regarding social innovations. From the social practice theory perspective, new elements connected by the UNDP and the local SIPs (that would not have been otherwise connected), through new social relationships, could encourage the invention of the idea that would be later used by local communities and individuals. After five years from the moment ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide movement and P4I Program launched SIPs, the logic has not changed. For instance, ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I tried to establish contacts between public councils attached to government institutions and CSOs. Social relations helped identify how the social problem could be tackled innovatively, and this experience, if imitated, has the potential to spread across society and create a new social reality (e.g., a new methodology of cooperation with people with disabilities in Uzbekistan).

82  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

2.2.7  Scaling up: scant possibility of diffusion According to social practice theory, any invention should be repeated, or in other words, diffused or scaled. Repetition or diffusion/scaling is needed to achieve, over time, a sustainable social change. Generally, in Central Asia every organization supporting SIPs adhered to the principle96 that any project should be diffused across the social system to become a true social innovation. However, since the projects were primarily aimed at tackling local issues, ­m icro-focus was prevailing over the intention to achieve a macroscope by ­scaling up the prototype of the ‘social innovation’ project. Usually, showcasing a good solution to the problem and providing the methodology for resolving a social issue seemed to be sufficient. As Dr. Nasritdinov from SILK says: Scaling is important for social innovations. It is required to see the ­bigger picture and not just remain preoccupied with micro-projects and local communities. We see SILK not as an operator of projects, but as a producer of concepts and methodologies that can be used by experts and professionals, communities, etc. Therefore, we try to experiment with new solutions. But at the moment we are at the stage of abstract ideas, and it is sometimes challenging for me personally to find communities who will be applying these methodologies.97 In fact, scaling opportunities for the ‘social innovation’ projects were limited. One limitation was the absence of a clear and detailed scaling plan of CSOs and international organizations promoting the projects. As was already mentioned above, it was often preferred to go local about ‘social innovations’, i.e. to look at a specific issue, rather than aim at global matters. Another reason for the scant diffusion possibility was the lack of political support, except in the case of Kazakhstan, where the government (Astana Hub) was involved as the partner of UNICEF. As mentioned already, even the availability of funding did not make any change without the political support of SIPs.98 This was also the case in Uzbekistan between 2012 and 2014. ‘Social innovation’ projects supported by the UNDP/UNV Project were expected to be scaled, and the UNDP was seeking opportunities for that. However, this was problematic due to the lack of government (local and national) support of local projects. Some occasional collaborations could allow for scaling, but at the moment this criterion of social practice theory has not yet been met. In fact, it was the intention of the UNDP in Uzbekistan to diffuse SIPs, but the lack of policymakers’ commitment made it problematic. As it was found out, individuals leading SIPs were looking for support from local public authorities but could not always receive it which prevented SIPs from being scaled. The problem was also pointed out by leaders of small-scale SIPs: for instance, Musabekov, who led the E-Diary project in his local community, recalled: “we tested our project in one school. It was possible because it was the school where I studied myself and teachers knew me there. To spread

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  83

my project across the city, I would need additional support”.99 Gafurov also mentions similar problems with regard to his local project: Infobox intended to help the local government to interact with people through the internet to answer their questions and help to solve their problems, but this did not happen Now, I do not plan to go on with the project.100 Inability to scale-up SIPs was an issue inhibiting further progress, as local organizations were not always eager to pick up SIPs, thus making them more sustainable- sometimes projects that had been successfully tested in Tashkent with a potential of being replicated in other regions of Uzbekistan were not supported by local governments of those regions. Khamidova recalls: We wonderfully did the DIY [Do It Yourself Lab] in Tashkent. You remember that. So many people came to the ‘Gulshan’ park to construct something from the plastic bottles, boxes, wood, other reusable materials, that we, otherwise, used to throw away. So many nice things were constructed. Some occasional visitors to the park even wanted to purchase something. But when we wanted to conduct the same DIY Lab in Muynak (the Republic of Karakalpakstan101), the local government first agreed to it but later canceled the Lab. I still do not know why.102 All these examples demonstrate that replicating SIPs has been a complicated task for the UNDP, the UNDP/UNV Project as well as for the leaders of small-scale SIPs. To some extent, this has impeded possible positive effects of SIPs in Uzbekistan. From the social innovation point of view, the inability to successfully diffuse projects prevented them from progressing towards meso and/or macro levels, which could eventually enable social transformation and social change. It was found that out of 33 local SIPs, only one has had the chance to be scaled. The project on producing eco-bags by a social enterprise for the retail chain ‘Korzinka.uz’ in Tashkent has been actually diffused. As has been mentioned before, it is a fruit of collaboration between a social enterprise ‘Ipak suzana’ and a private company ‘Korzinka.uz’. According to the Final Evaluation Report of the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project, after the project with ‘Korzinka.uz’ had been launched in Tashkent, other private retail chains such as ‘Next’ and ‘Makro’ also ordered eco-bags. In total, 16,000 eco-bags were produced and sold by 2014.103 As for the further collaboration with ‘Korzinka.uz’, eco-bags are planned to be available for purchase in all ‘Kozinka.uz’ supermarkets across the country,104 giving some hope that the project will be further scaled. The scaling or diffusion of SIPs was the major goal of the UNDP, very well corresponding at the same time with the provisions of the social practice theory. Making invention a regular practice or routine by institutionalizing

84  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

it and diffusing it across the society105 is what the theory recommends to do in order to make a social innovation happen, however, as is now obvious, scaling (or diffusion) in Uzbekistan has proved to be challenging. The ­U NDP-supported SIPs might become impetuses to social change at a later stage; for now, even scaling of some of their results (e.g., eco-bags project) will require more time and effort. The same is true for the ‘social innovation’ project supported in 2019 by ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide Movement and P4I. Both were seeking project sustainability but had not had a clear idea of its diffusion mechanism. Moreover, it was a persisting and typical CSO approach to fund local CSOs’ capacity building or co-working centers (e.g., in Kokand, Urgench, Navoi and Tashkent) for local activists.106 2.2.8 Social change: something everybody wants, but could not yet achieve In Central Asia, CSOs, international donors and government-supported organizations agreed that SIPs should ultimately make a social change. Theoretically speaking, social change is the last stage of the social innovation cycle. Social practice theory emphasizes that social practices should be diffused and institutionalized to enable social change. It is already mentioned that scaling of SIPs was problematic in Central Asian countries, however, it is understood107 that social innovations should bring about a new social reality by changing the existing old practices. Why did this not happen? One of the reasons for this was the lack of a systemic approach to the work that should be done by SIPs. As Azaliya Daiirbekova says: Of course, social change is required. If not for this, then what social innovations are designed for? However, one thing is to play a simulation game, and absolutely another is to solve problems systematically. For instance, we often talk about domestic violence. NGOs frequently offer to create shelters for women victims of the domestic violence. But shelters is one thing, it is not a solution of the problem. Of course, shelters provide counseling and even allow for a salaried job. But on the systemic level work with police, legislators is required. For our region, advocacy is sometimes already an innovation, because NGOs used to provide services only, without solving a problem. If it is also something technical or has an application of IT, then this should be used.108 Another reason is the lack of monitoring and evaluation tools helping to assess if a social change has happened or is happening. Surprisingly, the belief that SIPs are making the real change was quite firm despite the missing evidence of the transformations. Temirbekov says: We cannot always access the changes because our projects are short-term to access the changes they make. It is difficult because our projects aimed

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  85

at changing behavior, not just at raising awareness. Changing b­ ehavior is not always possible to measure. We lack systemic evaluation and monitoring. The government, on the other hand, wants quick results. Therefore, the government, donors and most of CSOs suffer from this.109 Temirbekov indicates that another challenge is to establish whether social change is happening. This is due to the short-term nature of SIPs. It is simply not possible to measure whether the projects bring about change to the environment they are implemented in because they come to an end before real social innovations happen. He emphasizes that the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia “did not have the criteria to evaluate their own innovativeness and the innovativeness of the projects. Every project EF supported had its own set of individual criteria, but they primarily focused on outcomes, not innovativeness”.110 Nurusheva from the Eurasia Foundation added that “even if social innovation did not work, it is still beneficial for other organizations to understand what works and what does not”.111 In other words, though focusing on outcomes of SIPs is logical, it still does not help to understand whether these outcomes have made any change in society. It was also helpful to learn from failures. Missing evidence-based social change from SIPs complicates things even more when organizations disregard the need in identifying it. For instance, Dr. Nuritdinov from SILK says: Social innovations should lead to social change, but this is not the end goal. In our local realities, even making some order, restoring something (e.g. rivers) is already a great achievement. In fact, I criticize donors including American donors, because for them anything they support should have a social impact and bring about social change. Based on this reasoning, they refuse to sponsor material, concrete projects. People might be more concerned about the quality of sidewalks they walk on every day than about social transformation. That is why the American focus on social change must be balanced with more infrastructural projects.112 In Uzbekistan, SIPs were also lacking clear evaluation methods of social change. In fact, as in other Central Asian countries, it was not easy to gauge whether the projects are able to make the required social change. On the other hand, it was too early for these SIPs to qualify for the final social innovation generation stage, namely, making a social change in society.

2.3 The developmental feature of ‘social innovation’ projects: more inclusion and empowerment of individuals From the development perspective, SIPs in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan ­corresponded to human development theory. They were aimed to achieve more inclusiveness and transparency, enabling more freedoms and better

86  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

social facilities – for instance, the improvement of capabilities (Sen, 1999). In that sense, ‘social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan met the developmental criterion. In the cases where development organizations such as the UNDP, UNICEF or USAID were not involved, the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia, ARGO, OSF or Internews were also seeking more projects for development, be it an improvement of governance, freedom of information or strengthening the infrastructural capacity of the city or local community. Certainly, non-developmental organizations had their own agenda and mandate, but the overall goal remained the same – addressing problems to support development. For instance, USAID’s P4I program joined by ARGO in Kazakhstan and ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide Movement in Uzbekistan pushed for better social facilities and inclusiveness through cooperation between the state and the civil society. The same is true for Tajikistan, where ARGO united with Internews to encourage collaboration between IT experts and local media to produce high-quality information to raise awareness of the public about existing social challenges. While being human-centric per se, they empowered individuals leading SIPs and those involved in the projects to generate and introduce their project ideas. Even in relatively complicated circumstances, when the implementation of SIPs was not easy, the number of successful projects indicates the development targets they were pursuing. For instance, from the experiences of the UNDP-supported SIPs in Uzbekistan in 2012–2014, Kholosboev tells that his local ‘social innovation’ project Peers Club was “aimed at fighting not only corruption, but also other lawbreaking such as human trafficking, and social issues”.113 In fact, through knowledge sharing the Peers Club project is supposed to help individuals to learn about their rights and demand respect for social standards. SIPs also demonstrated inclusiveness: for example, as Yuldasheva mentions: “the Fantasy Club project was intended to create more opportunities for local girls with disabilities”.114 The project helped to involve a usually neglected group of people with disabilities into activities helping them to generate income and improve their lives. As for the Infobox ‘social innovation’ project operating in Bukhara, one of its goals was to allow individuals to map the city’s new tourist destinations to support tourism to yet undiscovered places. It was believed that this would allow local communities to benefit from tourist inf low because they could provide their services to the tourists. Infobox also helped individuals living in these communities to raise their voices and source information about themselves. Mapping was also helpful as data on the communities – if used by the local government, it would make it aware of city areas left out from economic and social programs, thus ensuring a more inclusive character of such programs. Essentially the UNDP and UNDP/UNV Project intended to empower young people, women115 and individuals in less privileged situations who had remained neglected by existing development programs.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  87

SIPs in Kazakhstan, such as ‘Accessible Kazakhstan’ or ‘Growing together’ also have developmental goals such as increasing inclusivity and accessibility for children or promoting inclusive pre-school education in selected locations in Kazakhstan. For instance, the project on accessibility should inform children and their parents of spaces accessible for kids and monitor whether more public spaces are becoming children-friendly (including for children with disabilities). In Kyrgyzstan, where SIPs operated in the capital city of ­Bishkek, SILK launched development initiatives such as ‘Mapping Urban Poverty’ or ‘Developing models for measuring social capital in urban communities’. While being aimed at urban development, the projects should have been solving urban poverty or social capital issues required for the development. Both projects are driven by an academic approach, comprehensive research and data collection. For instance, the ‘Mapping Urban Poverty’ project is collecting data relevant to poverty indicators to locate poverty across the city. The data on poverty will be later used for targeted interventions and future SIPs. In Tajikistan, ‘social innovation’ projects such as ‘Information site for migrants’ intended to tackle migrants’ issues – the portion of population sending monetary remittances to Tajikistan that make a huge developmental impact. The website is supposed to inform returning migrants on a diverse range of issues of significance for them, such as legal issues. Through the local SIPs, the UNDP, UNICEF and USAID intended to provide more local, political, economic and social opportunities to communities. In this context, as Sen (1999) highlighted that “achieving justice, and conceptualizing economic needs are possible when democratic institutions, and effective practices as well as political liberty and civil rights are considered” (p. 148). Thus, donor organizations intended to design SIPs in a manner addressing these aspects of development. At the same time, given the difficulties faced in operating and ­introducing SIPs, development donors tried to adapt their development aid to the local Central Asian context, hence local SIPs are designed in accordance with international donors’ vision and approach to delivering development assistance. In this regard, the UNDP, UNICEF and USAID have first identified factors that might potentially contribute to risk for development, and then designed for development aid in accordance with those possible risks. In practice, while the government could be sensitive to donors’ development projects in governance or to their work with communities, donors have implemented SIPs that have not been considered by the government as being something too political. At the same time, SIPs allowed international organizations to operate in the governance area, and closer to people on the level of local communities. For example, when Asadova earlier discussed challenging collaboration with the government, she mentioned how the UNDP adapted its development aid in the course of these challenges in Uzbekistan: “as you know, working with government was not easy for us. Doing ‘social innovation’ projects was probably the only option for us at UNDP to work on the local level with local communities”.116

88  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

All in all, the above-mentioned examples of SIPs have demonstrated a ­ evelopmental overtone of ‘social innovation’ projects in Central Asian cound tries. In accordance with the international donors’ development approach, they could tackle issues that have been formulated as development challenges in governance (e.g., corruption or lack of inclusiveness). What they also clearly demonstrate is how development aid has been adjusted to the local context in post-Soviet Central Asia.

2.4  Social innovation intermixed with other concepts 2.4.1 ‘Social innovation’ intermixed with ‘social project’, ‘civic engagement’, ‘community volunteerism’ and ‘social technologies’ concepts In Central Asia, social innovations in general have been regarded as ­something that can resolve existing social problems. Theoretically, this is a generally correct, but very vague understanding of this concept. Although social innovation theorists such as Howaldt, Marques and Oosterlynck agree that social innovation does not have a single accepted definition (and probably should not have), nevertheless understanding what is and what is not a social innovation is required. This, along with the measurement of social innovation is the primary, albeit not the only, theoretical problem of social innovation. Quite naturally, social innovation is an entirely new concept for post-Soviet Central Asia. Not surprisingly, it has been very often intermixed with other terms CSOs, international donors and government organizations used. In this context, the problem is that if the term is not clearly defined and its criteria are not precisely identified, ­organizations supporting a ‘social innovation’ project cannot and would not follow up to find out whether the projects have become true social innovations. The first signs of this could be observed in all Central Asian countries. For instance, in Kazakhstan, Daiirbekova from USAID says that “social innovation according to them [USAID] is innovative solutions to already existing problems. But the problem is that existing CSOs in Central Asia cannot offer new solutions to the existing problems”.117 She also emphasizes that “social innovation is something realized through social technologies. This is something leapfrogging, new approaches encompassing new elements. Sometimes it is an old solution for a new problem, sometimes it is a completely new solution”.118 Very close to this definition, the team of Eurasia Foundation in Central Asia highlighted that they understand social innovation as “the practices that best fit to a certain group of population or to the whole region to solve their problems. It is not necessarily something entirely new. This might be methods and approaches, which work efficiently for problem solution”.119 It is “a new solution, which helps to resolve a social problem”120 and

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  89

any solution that is new for a certain area, region, city. It should not be something completely new, because Central Asian societies are still very far from the centers where real innovative solutions are generated. ­Solutions can be contextually new and adapted to the local context.121 In Kyrgyzstan, SILK activists went even further in their explanation of what social innovation is. As Dr. Nasritdinov says: Social innovations are very important for our work in Bishkek. We try to avoid the traditional Soviet approach to architecture and urban planning. Thus, we are eager to work with local communities and search for alternative approaches and know-hows with no traditional restrictions. I think social innovators should be a little bit opportunistic, look for opportunities, rather than follow step-by-step instructions. Also, a social innovator should have ideas that can motivate people. It is not only about money.122 This explanation is also not helpful for judging if SILK has a clear understanding of social innovations. Subsequently, it is not certain whether ‘social innovation’ projects are actually going to be social innovations in the end. In Uzbekistan though, SIPs have been launched earlier than in Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan but they still lacked a clear definition of ‘social innovation’. In 2019, P4I and ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide Movement defined social innovations as the new methods/technologies to teach to CSOs to allow them working better and more efficient. Social innovation is creation opportunities for civil society in Uzbekistan. They focus on CSOs in the regions and their work with public councils in Uzbekistan.123 In 2012–2014, the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project was intended to support social innovations and volunteerism and introduce them into Uzbekistan’s social context. In practice, however, UNDP’s national partners did not always understand what ‘social innovation’ is. Given the fact that social innovation inherited many definitions, being clear about what should be delivered while designing and introducing SIPs was the primary task for the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project. The UNDP and project staff have not had a clear understanding of what social innovation is. Let us look at some definitions of ‘social innovation’ provided by the UNDP and the UNDP/UNV Project staff in Uzbekistan. Asadova says: social innovations are solutions that work for the resolution of social problems/issues. They do not have to be scientifically new. Sometimes they can be new for a certain area/context. For example, something used in farming can be used in medicine.124

90  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

Ayupov provides the following definition: Social innovation is an innovation that is social, that is beneficial for the society, especially for vulnerable groups of the society, not as a ­priority, but as an additional aspect. I have never considered the financial c­ omponent to be excluded from ‘social innovation’. In other words, ‘social innovation’ can be profitable, though the practice shows that such examples are quite rare. Many people see ‘social innovation’ as a charity. But the essence of ‘social innovation’ is delivering public good. As for the innovation itself, it is about unconventional approaches and using existing systems and opportunities by integrating them for public good. It can be an invention in the core of ‘social innovation’.125 Khamidova considers social innovations as: Arrangements of activities and procedures that differ from previous accustomed patterns and that have far-reaching social consequences. ­Elements of social change that create new social facts, i.e. inf luencing the behavior of individuals or specific social groups discernibly and aligning it with accepted – not primarily economic rationality following – goals. New combinations that produce social change.126 Shakhnoz Bazarova (Zafari), in charge of the coordination of volunteers at the UNDP/UNV Project, understands social innovations as: “unconventional solution of social problem, which is less costly than traditional solutions. Social innovations evolve the usage of human resources”.127 From the responses of the UNDP and project staff members, two major criteria fully relevant to social innovation were stated by respondents: (1) social innovation is a new idea introduced into the social context; (2) social innovation should have social impact (make a social change). So, despite mentioning different definitions of social innovation, the UNDP and UNDP/UNV Project staff had no clear understanding of the major elements of social innovation. National partners were quite in agreement with the UNDP and project staff about the social component of social innovation, considering it as an opportunity to make a social impact. For instance, Mukimov from the Center of Youth Initiatives says: “social innovations are innovative ideas for society, and for the public good”.128 Polyakova from the National Library mentions that: Social innovation is the support of areas helping people, making public good. Because we live in the society and ‘social innovation’ is the primary support of social initiative. And promoting volunteerism is a very good example. I remember you had a ‘Time bank’ initiative for volunteers that I liked. So, social innovation is a support of initiatives aiming at social problems and improving these problems/issues.129

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  91

Thus, the UNDP and Uzbekistan’s national partners were in agreement about the public good that should be achieved by SIPs as a result of the resolution of a social problem. Although cooperation with the UNDP was sought by national partners to address areas where they substantially lacked financial resources and/or expertise, the concept of ‘social innovation’ applied by the UNDP was not fully understood by them. For instance, Polyakova mentioned: We have clearly understood what UNDP tries to do by promoting v­ olunteerism. We at the National Library have even benefited from having more volunteers, who started coming to us after cooperation with UNDP project. But we did not understand what social innovation is, and what UNDP tries to do by promoting it. UNDP even wanted to launch a Social Innovation Lab in the National Library, but this goal was not achieved. Maybe it was a lack of communication from UNDP? We were often awaiting official requests from UNDP before doing its projects at the National Library, but we have not always received such requests with clear explanation.130 Evidently, none of the national partners with whom the UNDP had signed MoUs clearly understood the social innovations that the UNDP intended to launch. Considering small-scale SIPs as being merely additional donordriven initiatives, local organizations missed the point of what social innovation is about. Mukimov mentions in this regard: In our understanding, UNDP tried to achieve its goals in delivering results and spending donor money. Volunteerism was already in practice in our center, and ‘social innovation’ was something the purpose of what we could not fully understand. If it was about doing social projects to solve social problems, then we at the center had implemented such projects even before collaboration with UNDP.131 The major problem with introducing social innovation as a concept and ­practice in Uzbekistan was the lack of understanding by partners about what social innovation is about. As Ayupov says: “our major problem was explaining to our partners what social innovation is”132 Indeed, misunderstanding the concept happened because of the scarcity of national partners’ knowledge about social innovations and miscommunication between the UNDP and its partners about the concept and ‘social innovation’ projects. Social innovation clearly was a new concept in Uzbekistan’s context. It lacked a clear definition and, subsequently, was implied and applied differently both by the UNDP and local organizations. In fact, national partners were usually considering UNDP/UNV Project’s initiatives either as another UN-designed social project, or donor-driven development projects. The UNDP-led areas of activities were often considered to be something which had already existed

92  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

in Uzbekistan but had not yet been properly labeled as a ‘social innovation’. Hence, in Uzbekistan, the ‘social innovation’ concept was intermixed with other terms, such as ‘social initiative’, ‘social projects’, ‘civic engagement’, or ‘community volunteerism’. A discussion of the terms and how they have been interchanged with ‘social innovation’, is provided below. 2.4.2  Social initiative or social project Since UNDP’s national partners have been regarding UNDP-supported ­projects as something aimed towards development, they usually saw them as something that should bring social value to the society and people. In this context, from the partners’ perspective, irrespective of how a UNDP project is labeled, it should be a social initiative. For instance, Polyakova says: “social innovation is supporting areas that help people, make public good. Because we live in the society, social innovation is a social initiative, and a form of civic engagement”.133 Project-wise, based on the understanding of national partners, social innovation should be a social project which solves social issues. Mukimov from the Center for Youth Initiatives thinks that “if it [social innovation] was about doing social projects to solve social problems, then the center has been implementing such projects”.134 National partners of the UNDP/UNV Project were primarily focusing on the social component of social innovation, completely missing the point about innovation that should be featured in any social innovation initiative. Consequently, this major focus on the social element led to the understanding and application of social innovation in Uzbekistan predominantly as a social initiative or a social project. Certainly, social innovation is about addressing social issues, however, focusing only on its social dimension leads to a wrong perception of the term. 2.4.3  Civic engagement or community volunteering The UNDP/UNV Project ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in ­Uzbekistan’ combined two major activities: promotion of social innovations and support of volunteerism. Since these areas were organized in parallel and were even sometimes overlapping with each other, SIPs that were led by volunteers and leaders were considered to be a civic engagement or community volunteering per se. Therefore, Asadova from the UNDP says: “since we were also promoting volunteerism in the UNDP/UNV Project, our partners, especially from the National Library, were thinking that social innovation is about community volunteering, or some sort of civic engagement”.135 In other words, ‘social innovation’ projects were regarded as being an arrangement of community or volunteering activities. Social relationships among individuals were one of the important components of SIPs, but SIPs were not only about that. However, for the national partners of the UNDP

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  93

in Uzbekistan, social innovation is about engaging the community, and it was that engagement that was pursued as social innovation. Respondents explicitly mentioned that social innovation is about new, unconventional approaches or combinations thereof that challenge the established practices that cause problems. New socially desirable arrangements/ activities, or in other words practices were required for solving problems and addressing needs. 2.4.4  Social innovations and ICTs In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, social innovations were defined through the use of ICTs. In the case of Astana Hub in Kazakhstan, Bakushev and ­Egeubaeva mention that: They [Astana Hub] have started cooperation with UNICEF for i­nnovations in terms of ICT, because Astana Hub primarily deals with ICTs. But, in general, innovations can go beyond IT. Social innovation for Astana Hub was to use technologies (ICTs) for improvement of the current live of children in Kazakhstan. Social innovation is the use of ICTs in social sectors of life. This is supported by the state, but in case of Astana Hub, UNICEF applied it for the kids with specific needs and disabilities. They have never looked at innovations outside of the ICTs use. Innovations could be in terms of business models of project implementation. Eventually, they can be within new methodologies. In this context, social innovations could have a broader meaning.136 In Tajikistan, Media and Social Innovation Lab united ICT experts, journalists and activists because organizers of the Lab believed that: Social innovation is projects aimed at social issues combined with i­nnovative technologies. Therefore, in Social Innovation Lab the teams were arranged in the following manner that at least one ICT specialist should have been in the team to promote IT technologies and through them innovations. Also, to design the projects to solve the social problem. The Lab was organized with ARGO. At that moment the emphasis was made on collaboration of media and SCOs by using innovations to solve social problems.137 In fact, it was mostly about the interpretation of the term by organizations and projects attributed to the activity that organizations/projects carried out. Interviews with the UNDP, USAID, Astana Hub, Eurasia Foundation, Internews and local organizations have unfolded the lack of agreement about the definition of social innovation. National partners have usually interchanged the social innovation concept with other terms. Since international donors, CSOs and national partners defined social innovation differently,

94  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia

they have also used it in a different manner which was acceptable for both sides. Subsequently, projects labeled as “social innovations” became adequate opportunities for pursuing development goals in a manner acceptable to everyone. On the other hand, substituting the term ‘social innovation’ for other terms contributed to the diminishing of the concept. Since in post-Soviet Central Asia SIPs had a volitional character, i.e. not fully undergone the process of generating social innovations, they have not met all social innovations criteria found in the scholarly literature. Since the social innovation concept was interchanged with other terms locally, international donors, CSOs and local organizations (governments and communities) have not been either able or actually willing to follow up on whether all criteria of social innovation have been met after the donors’ support and funding discontinued. This is particularly true for the penultimate and last criteria of social innovation which require more time to be met. In other words, it will be challenging to identify whether SIPs eventually became true social innovations.

Notes 1 See https://www.usaid.gov/central-asia-regional/fact-sheets/civil-society-supportprogram-central-asia 2 See https://csodev.school/courses/si-module-for-sica-beneficiaries/ 3 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 4 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 5 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 6 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 7 Interview, Talgat Bakushev. April 2021. 8 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 9 See http://en.cso-central.asia/the-media-and-social-innovation-lab-dushanbetajikistan/ 10 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021. 11 Interview, Vadim Sadonshoev. January 2021. 12 Interview, Vadim Sadonshoev. January 2021. 13 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project. Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 1. 14 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 15 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 16 Seehttps://telegra.ph/PROGRAMMA-PARTNERSTVO-DLYA-INNOVACIJV- U Z BE K I S TA N E - OBYAV LYA E T- G R A N TOV Y J - KON K U R S DLYA-NNO-04-13 17 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 18 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. Interview, Vadim Sadonshoev. January 2021. 19 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021; Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 20 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 21 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 22 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 23 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 24 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  95 25 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 26 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 27 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 28 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 29 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 30 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 31 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 32 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 33 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 34 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 35 Interview, Umid Gafurov. November 2017. 36 Interview, Ulugbek Musabekov. November 2017. 37 Interview, Lola Yuldasheva. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 38 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 39 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 40 Howaldt et al, 2014. 41 as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 17 42 Howaldt et al., 2014. 43 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 44 GONGO is Government Organized Non-Governmental Organization. 45 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 46 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 47 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021. 48 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 49 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 50 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 51 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 52 Memorandum of understanding between the UNDP and Center for Youth Initiatives, 2013, p. 3. 53 Interview, Doston Kholosboev. November 2017. 54 Interview, Veronika Polyakova. August 2017. 55 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 56 Interview, Umid Gafurov. November 2017. 57 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 58 Interview, Bokhodir Ayupov. August 2017. 59 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 60 Memorandum of understanding between the UNDP and the Center for Youth Initiatives, 2013, p. 3. 61 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, 2012. 62 Interview, Doston Kholosboev. November 2017. 63 Interview, Lola Yuldasheva. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 64 Interview, Bokhodir Ayupov. August 2017. 65 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 66 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 67 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 68 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 69 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 70 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 71 Interview, Umid Gafurov. November 2017. 72 Interview, Ulugbek Musabekov. November 2017. 73 Interview, Doston Kholosboev. November 2017.

96  SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia 74 Memorandum of Understanding between the UNDP and the Center for Youth Initiatives, 2013, p. 2. 75 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 76 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 77 . Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 78 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 79 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 80 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 81 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 82 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021. 83 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021. 84 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021. 85 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 24. 86 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 24. 87 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 88 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 89 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 90 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 91 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 92 Interview, Vadim Sadonshoev. January 2021. 93 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 94 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 95 Interview, Bokhodir Ayupov. August 2017. 96 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 97 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 98 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 99 Interview, Ulugbek Musabekov. November 2017. 100 Interview, Umid Gafurov. November 2017. 101 Karakalpakstan is located in the north of Uzbekistan. 102 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 103 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 23. 104 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 23. 105 Howaldt et al., 2014. 106 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 107 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 108 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 109 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 110 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 111 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 112 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 113 Interview, Doston Kholosboev. November 2017. 114 Interview, Lola Yuldasheva. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 115 The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ project, Final Evaluation Report, 2014, p. 7. 116 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017.

SIPs in post-Soviet Central Asia  97 117 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 118 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 119 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 120 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 121 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 122 Interview, Emil Nasritdinov April 2021. 123 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 124 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 125 Interview, Bokhodir Ayupov. August 2017. 126 Interview, Sevara Khamidova. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 127 Interview, Shakhnoz Zafari. Via IMO Messenger. November 2017. 128 Interview, Husan Mukimov. August 2017. 129 Interview, Veronika Polyakova. August 2017. 130 Interview, Veronika Polyakova. August 2017. 131 Interview, Husan Mukimov. August 2017. 132 Interview, Bokhodir Ayupov. August 2017. 133 Interview, Veronika Polyakova. August 2017. 134 Interview, Husan Mukimov. August 2017. 135 Interview, Emiliya Asadova. August 2017. 136 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 137 Interview, Angelika Popova. January 2021.

References Domanski, D. (2017). Exploring the research landscape of social innovation. Dortmund: A deliverable of the project Social Innovation Community (SIC). Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical ­approaches to social innovation - a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: ‘Social innovation: driving force of social change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: ­ Sozialforschungsstelle. Mulgan, G., & Murray, R. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: The Young Foundation. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

3 Generation, features and assessment of the ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Caucasus 3.1 Generation of ‘social innovation’ projects: how it worked In Caucasus ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs) were supported by v­arious organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (UNDP Accelerator Labs1 or Service Lab,2 UNDP and European Union (EU),3 Eurasia Foundation,4 private sector (Social Innovation Lab)5 and the government (Azerbaijani Service and Assessment Network (ASAN)6 in Azerbaijan or Ministry of Justice in Georgia7). Azerbaijan is the case where SIPs have received a great deal of support from international donors (UNDP), government (ASAN) and private ­sector (Social Innovation Lab). At first glance, social innovations here should f lourish and enjoy unprecedented support. It should be noted that very scarce information about private businesses or state support of social innovations in Azerbaijan was available. Therefore, analysis was based to some extent on the desk review and official information open for the public. For instance, ASAN’s website of states the following: ASAN, the State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations u ­ nder the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, was established by the ­Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan No.685 of 13 July 2012. The State Agency is a body of executive power that, according to its scope of activities, will carry out the uniform management of the “ASAN” service centers, coordinate the functions of the employees of the state agencies to act at those centers, hold control and provide ­assessment, carry out the mutual integration of databases of state agencies, accelerate the organization of electronic services and improve the management system in this area.8 The Agency focuses on e-government services and manages projects within the remit of this government agency.9 Though the agency has ‘social ­innovations’ in its name, obviously it implements projects in the area of the public sector and e-governance. It is not clear if and how exactly projects are selected and innovations are generated. Most likely, the projects are designed in accordance with the government priorities from the top and thus DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-4

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  99

are not citizens-driven. Clearly, in this context, it is not possible to design human-centric projects. Another example is the Social Innovation Lab (SIL) which has a clear f­ocus on turning new ideas into new businesses. It was established to support tech startups on an annual basis.10 The SIL is a purely private sector initiative aimed at generating user-centric products. Among the programs, SIL ­supports are contests, challenges and accelerators.11 The information available on its website does not shed light on the criteria and procedures of designing SIPs and leaves the impression of not really dealing with social innovations, but rather with commercial entrepreneurial ideas. The Accelerator Lab is supported by the UNDP and partners from Germany and Qatar. While being a global initiative, the Lab started functioning in Azerbaijan in 2020. Before the global COVID-19 outbreak started and even during its critical phase, Accelerator Lab has been able to launch SIPs jointly with the government, activists and IT ex­ btained from perts.12 In this book, the Azerbaijan-related analysis uses the data o the Accelerator Lab and UNDP. SIPs were generated according to the human-­ centric principle, addressing people’s needs; moreover, they were serving the needs of UNDP’s government partners and had established collaborations with them. Those elements have been applied for the selection of ideas and the design of the projects. Examples of ‘social projects’ are shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Azerbaijan Category

Brief description of the projects

COVID-19 related projects

A coronavirus self-checker bot to inform people what to do if they think have symptoms; E-platform providing healthcare professionals with free online training courses and certification programs; A mobile app for COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment; A Video Doctor app to enable remote medical consultations and help reduce the needs for close contact between healthcare workers and patients during the pandemic; A bot that answers questions from the public, providing, prompt, reliable and officially approved information 24/7. Supporting small ‘Evdeqal’ the country’s first-ever one-stop-shop portal for all businesses to e-services; go digital Green The upcycling platform – designed both to encourage more people development in Azerbaijan to upcycle products they’d normally throw away; A water hackathon inviting young women and men to come up with tech solutions to water-related challenges; Collective Collective intelligence sessions with professionals and youth on intelligence how to develop and retain top IT staff and how to encourage more women into STEM training and careers; Encouraging young women and girls to graduate STEM fields; Inclusivity hackathon Source: Table compiled by the author based on the UNDP data. https://azerbaijan-undp.medium.com/finding-opportunities-in-a-crisis-how-undps-acceleratorlab-in-baku-has-made-the-most-of-2020-16fe53959764.

100  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

In Armenia, Kolba Lab contributed to the design of SIPs in accordance with the following process of social innovations generation: Proposition. Kolba Lab and the UNDP worked together with other d­ onors in Armenia to identify priority development challenges. After having i­dentified development problems, they published their list to call for innovative solutions from individuals. Individuals/users then come up with their shortlist of priorities. Prioritization. Though Kolba Lab did preparatory work on identifying development challenges, it, however, allowed users experiencing certain ­ problems to agree or disagree with the proposed challenges. Actually, ­users could disagree with all propositions and prioritize different development challenges they intended to tackle. Kolba Lab picked up end-users’ challenges to announce an open call for ideas and projects able to solve these c­ hallenges. At this stage, Kolba Lab assisted potential trouble-solvers in acquiring pitching and idea/project presentation skills required for presenting/pitching their ideas/projects in front of an experienced selection board of experts from different sectors. For this purpose, Kolba Lab organized H ­ ackathons, ­Social ­Innovation camps, etc. At these events, ideas were usually revised and s­ elected for the next stage – incubation. Incubation. Selected ideas were taken to the incubation process supported by the Kolba Lab. Ideas received mentoring support and assistance in connecting them to the existing ecosystem in Armenia. Moreover, Kolba Lab provided seed funding to the three best ideas and helped in turning ideas into minimum viable products (MVPs) or workable business models. Implementation. Once the ideas/projects had been incubated, Kolba Lab and their authors started working on their implementation together with local partner organizations and Armenian government authorities. In fact, though the UNDP and Kolba Lab had first conducted their own analysis and consultations around development challenges with other ­donors in Armenia, they nevertheless prioritized the list of challenges ­offered by citizens (beneficiaries of development aid). This corresponded to the ­human-centered principle and prompted the problem diagnosis stage that had to be carried out by the end-users (not the UNDP or other donors/actors). Prioritization also allowed idea generation through proposals at Hackathons, Social Innovation camps, etc. Prototyping/implementation stage where Kolba Lab – incubated projects were coming up with minimum viable products (MVPs) or working business models, moved successful projects to the sustaining/institutionalization stage where Kolba Lab jointly with leaders of the projects and other actors (e.g., CSOs), was helping project ideas to become regular practices in communities and governments. Later, those projects could be diffused to other communities and governments, and used as best practices, preferably throughout the country, to make desirable social change.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  101

3.1.1  Criteria for ideas/projects selected by Kolba Lab Kolba Lab has selected SIPs based on specific standards. For this purpose, Kolba Lab had customized criteria for the selection of ideas. The following publicly accessible selection criteria guided perspective applicants: 1 Applicant’s understanding of the problem (up to 10 points) Questions considered: To what extent project’s users’ insights (needs & preferences) were considered? How relevant and timely is the intervention to solve the identified problem? 2 Quality of the proposed solution (up to 20 points) Questions considered: How innovative is the solution? To what extent does the proposed solution address the problem? Will the solution have a social impact? 3 Capacity of the applicant team (up to 10 points) Questions considered: How can the applicant’s skills and experience contribute to the realization of the proposed solution? Does the applicant have commitment/motivation for the implementation of the project? (Kolba Lab, 2013). The criteria were always customized to the needs of competition, including the needs of government agencies. Also, Kolba Lab had personalized ­requirements for teams participating in the competition. For this reason, Kolba Lab developed pitching requirements that every team had to follow. For the local governance innovation contest, also called Kolba Lab #mylocgov Challenge, customized requirements have been formulated at http://kolba.am/en/post/faq-loc-gov-challenge/ (Kolba Lab, 2013). The selection was made by the jury consisting of representatives of various sectors. The jury selected ideas that had been submitted by individuals as solutions to problems in priority areas. Ideas were proposed based on existing problems defined by the applicants. As Marina Mkhitaryan, Head of Kolba Lab emphasizes: “solutions are usually coming from grassroots level meaning involvement of citizens and crowdsourcing of ideas for innovation”.13 In the case of local governments, Kolba Lab was able to support ideas coming from individuals inside public organizations who were aware about the problem and possessed necessary information and knowledge to offer solutions. These individuals understood the problems of public services they provided better than end-users of those services. These individuals were ­so-called ‘policy entrepreneurs’14 who possessed information about the problem and were prepared to take risks to tackle it. To make those projects work, two components were required: (1) involvement and commitment of ­individuals in governments and communities; (2) ICT tools and access to open data.

102  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

Social relationships between individual project leaders, business entities, public sector employees and civil society organizations were also vital for designing and further implementation of SIPs. Teamwork involved usually required f lexibility in the sense of the ability to combine and reconcile different visions as to the project development. Hackathons, Innovation camps and labs were all helpful in project ideas’ incubation. Innovation in the public sector underwent a similar, relatively complicated process, with many project ideas having a potential for failure. Therefore, as Mkhitaryan mentions, “not all solutions, according to the philosophy of Kolba Lab, have to be replicated, accelerated or expanded, but they can provoke innovative thinking inside the existing system, which can also be a great achievement”.15 This research covered and analyzed all small-scale SIPs and discussed them in accordance with the theoretical framework of the study. Fourteen small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP and Kolba Lab are displayed in Table 3.2. Table 3.2  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia (Kolba Lab) Category

Brief description of the projects

Anti-corruption

• ‘Monitoring the spending of government officials for business trips’ – a web resource allowing monitoring budget expenditures for business trips of government officials; • ‘Monitoring relocation of public vehicles’ – a web resource allowing monitoring the use of government (public) vehicles only for government (public not private) matters; • ‘Blood control application’ – the mobile app allowing public access to the information of all the blood samples in all public and private blood centers. • ‘Hosanq. Info’ project – an open-source database of Electric Networks of Armenia that enables users to track his or her personal energy consumption history; ‘Armenian Meteo’ project – an IT tool aimed at finding technological solutions to climate change; • Interactive city budget (in 6 cities) – an app visualizing city budgets. • ‘Quality of life calculator’ – a tool which measures and visualizes quality of life in different districts of Yerevan; • ‘Consumers’ rights protection Chat bot’ – a Chat bot allowing submitting a petition or complain about consumers’ rights violation. Also used to inform consumers about their rights; • ‘Accessibility map for users with disabilities’ – a web resource adjusted for users with disabilities to navigate in the city; • ‘Free legal tool for analyzing court decisions and cases’ – a tool allowing analyzing different court decisions and cases to compare them and enhance legal literacy;

Open data/data visualization

E-services

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  103

Others

• ‘Smart City solution (condominium management system)’ – a platform that optimizes and eases the communication between residents and condominiums, increases efficiency and makes condominium operations more transparent. The platform enables trilateral cooperation between the municipality, building residents and condominiums; • ‘Garbage Management optimization tool’ – a tool that uses datasets provided by Sanitek waste management company to track garbage collection routes, density of population and the number of trash bins installed in two districts of Yerevan. Based on this data, a prototype of the model would optimize the garbage collection; Online School registration/ a mobile app that allows access to the public schools’ database in Yerevan, to learn about available enrollment opportunities. • ‘Taghinfo’ – a web resource and info website about local social problems; • ‘ARVest art education board game’ – an art game to promote interest to museums and culture of Armenia among the local population; ‘Seeing hands’ – a project for people with disabilities to train and employ the visually impaired as massage therapists.

Source: Table compiled by the author based on the UNDP Kolba Lab data.

In 2014, Mardamej (translation ‘in the crowd of people’) Social Innovation Camp was launched and subsequently annually supported by the Eurasia Foundation (EF). As Tatevik Papazyan, Program Associate at EF, who coordinated Mardamej Social Innovation Camp, recalls: Mardamej16 is an annual event which is funded by two ongoing projects: (1) Civic Engagement in Local Governance17 and (2) Media for Informed Civic Engagement18 both launched seven years ago. SCOs sector was a driver of social innovations. I think governmental sector cannot effectively run social innovations. Armenian government does not have enough capacity and expertise to run social innovation programs and achieve tangible results.19 The Camp consists of two phases: the event phase and the project implementation phase.20 The event phase includes the following three parts: 1 Invitation of speakers and experts depending on the topic of the event; 2 Brainstorming for innovative ideas after introductory sessions; 3 Division of participants into groups for project designing. The group work had different formats from the three-day in-person event before to the six-day live online during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order

104  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

to escape logistical issues, it was redesigned on the regional principle. Projects were financially supported and coordinated by EF, while implementers were the volunteers, with project budgets of around US$2,000.21 These SIPs are covered in Table 3.3. In Georgia, the UNDP was mostly active in setting up SIPs, through a Service Lab established under the Public Service Development Agency of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. Sesil Verdzadze, the UNDP Head of Solutions Mapping and former Head of Service Lab explains how the projects were generated: We do not think like, let us design a ‘social innovation’ project, let us come up with criteria. It comes from the needs of population. And we design the projects to address these needs. This is the approach of the Service Lab and the UNDP. UNDP also works to address the existing gaps to have better quality of life within the country. We design the project and then look if it falls under the social innovation category. We do not develop the criteria at the initial stage.22 This was the only time someone told that there was no initial intention to label anything as ‘social innovation’. However, the approach was still to frame Service Lab’s projects as social innovations. Verdzadze explains in detail that the projects designed by the Lab were looking (a) at the gaps in the public services and (b) at the needs of the Public Service Development Agency: The Public Service Development Agency is the government entity which is responsible for the development of the public services. It has the m ­ andate to oversee the government to analyze the needs and ­develop the tools and solutions that can be implemented across the government. Since the Service Lab was placed within the Public Service ­Development Agency, we were looking for the gaps in the services provided for ­c itizens and we started looking how people with different disabilities are accessing public services, including deaf and Table 3.3  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia (Mardamej) Category

Brief description of the projects

Local Smart bin – to sort out the garbage in Ararat city. Teams development of citizens compete and receive fee reductions to pay to municipality’s communal services; Footprint – off line and online mapping of the buildings not accessible for people with disabilities ‘Old-fashioned’ professions to identify, reevaluate the outdated, disappearing professions in Shirak region using innovative tools/approaches. Source: Table compiled by the author based on the Eurasia Foundation data.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  105

visual impairments. We started working with 112 emergency service in Georgia, because people with disabilities could not call the police or fire department etc. 112 and UNDP teamed up to introduce the approach that was comfortable for community to use to get the help. After the design workshop that we held, it turned out that using the simple video calling tool and introducing it to the 112 ­service served quite well. Also we looked at ­P ublic Service ­Development Agency ­itself and identified that their website was not accessible for people with visual impairments. We decided to ­modify this website to make the services accessible for people with visual ­impairments. In these two cases we worked with particular community. 23 In other words, the Service Lab also works in two modalities: 1 Addressing the needs identified by the government with methodologies like design thinking, behavioral insights, etc. 2 Supporting the general public/local communities on their request. Verdzadze also elaborates on the peculiarities of the collaboration between the UNDP and the Ministry of Justice that supervises the Public Service ­Development Agency. This helps to understand how an international donor and the government (ministry) collaborated in Georgia to design SIPs. She says: In the Ministry of Justice an Innovation Unit, which was an R&D type structure was existent. UNDP engaged in the process of capacity building of the unit. After having a study tour to the UK to understand how the labs work, we decided that there is a right place for a Service Lab. It was a grassroot initiative in the organization. We communicated this to the Minister. UNDP continued the support and identification of future partners. UNDP supports the projects of the Lab and initiatives of the UNDP. UNDP also became a client of the Lab.24 Khatuna Sandroshvilli, an Innovations specialist at UNDP, who supported the establishment of the Service Lab and Rustavi City Innovation Hub ­explains that “selection of projects is a formal process. In Georgia, they have two platforms (urbaliani.ge for civic initiatives and Orbeliani plus for crowdfunding). Crowdfunding needs to combine learning element as it is new”. 25 Sandroshvilli recalls how the youth call for children was conducted on the crowdfunding platform: We conducted a youth call for school children. Children had difficulty in using the platform because in Georgia children are not taught to talk about money. Children whose relatives were abroad and sending remittances, were swift to learn how crowdfunding works, because they did not need to go through the metal shift.26

106  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

Sandroshvilli reconfirms the words of Verdzadze and tells about the successful experiences UNDP had with the Ministry of Justice and The Ministry of Internal Services, who addressed Service Lab to develop user-centered services. She says: We were super lucky in 2014. Change happens by connecting the dots of different factors that already exist. We took the approach of hand-on learning. We invited an expert to learn the design thinking. Later our governance reform project manager came to me and talked about persistent problem of public services adjusted to the needs of people with disabilities. At that time Service Lab was just established and we tried to connect public sector services and people with disabilities. They participated in the workshop and the process was initiated by the UNDP. We connected interested parties from both ends, valuable organized civic group of the Society of Deaf, Ministry of Interior with motivated and skilled team and the funding. We had an innovation person and the management. After eight months the service was operational and received an award for the best innovation in the public sector among eighty-two countries. It is still operational and used. It also had side effects that we have not planned. It is used to report the domestic abuse cases, because now deaf people can use sign language interpreters to call through skype and speak directly. This was the first time when public services employed sign language interpreters. Other agencies started recruiting these people without UNDP support. Service Lab was involved in testing the service. Based on that test we had to re-write the registration script completely because the way how sign language works is different from the regular language.27 ‘Social innovation’ projects in Georgia are summarized in Table 3.4. Table 3.4  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Georgia Category

Brief description of the projects

Rustavi city projects

Rustavi Innovation Hub Plastic waste cycle in Rustavi Urban Foresight Report – Rustavi Rustavi Game for participatory governance

Others

Foresight in Civil Law Design thinking toolkit OPSI case study link to co-designing 112 Emergency Services for People with Disabilities OPSI report on public sector innovation featuring Georgia ­reverse-engineering case study

Source: Table compiled by the author based on the data provided by Service Lab.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  107

3.2  Assessment of SIPs 3.2.1  Not really new ‘social innovations’ This might look quite unexpected, but in Caucasian countries ‘social ­i nnovations’ have not been treated as something completely new. Supporters of social innovations in the region unveiled that they never thought about SIPs as entirely new solutions. Thus, this criterion has not been always fully met as per social practice theory. For instance, Nargiz Gulieva from UNDP Azerbaijan gives the example of one ‘social innovation’ ­project – video doctor platform supported by the UNDP – and explains that “video doctor where people can contact health care professionals through the online platform may not be an innovation in some other parts of the world”. 28 Usually, social innovations are contextual and according to the social ­practice theory are combinations of new social practices replacing ­existing practices that are proved to be ineffective. This is particularly theoretically true for the micro-level analysis of social innovations. In post-­S oviet ­Caucasus, the practice has confirmed this theoretical explanation for social innovations. Despite the required newness of SIPs, donors of the projects were looking for effectiveness, albeit measuring it was problematic. ­Remarkably, for the sake of effectiveness of a solution, international organizations were eager to promote ideas that were not new. As per Tatevik Papazyan, social innovations are new in a certain context. Innovation is not about i­nventing something new, but to find more effective way to do ­something, or more effective and innovative solution for certain issue. However, to invent something new it is not a requirement.29 Khatuna Sandroshvilli from the UNDP Georgia mentions that “social ­innovations should not necessarily be new. Sometimes one can think of ­reviving something which is forgotten”.30 She adds that “for instance, ancient ­irrigation system that is used now. This is an example for people to know that one does not need something super technological, he/she can use the already existing system”.31 It is worth mentioning that newness has not been excluded from the set of criteria for social innovations. It was recognized that, though contextually, ‘social innovation’ projects should be new. Practitioners were seeking new ideas and solutions (even old) that would be able to solve the existing social problems innovatively. Moreover, ‘new’ in the case of SIPs did not always mean something technologically new. Even old technologies used in the new context would work in the Caucasus. Clearly, the way SIPs were developed in the Caucasus is very similar to that used in Central Asia.

108  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

3.2.2 People-centeredness and inclusiveness: supporting solutions coming from the grassroots level Human-centered approach was applied in designing SIPs in the Caucasus, which fact is confirmed by examples from all post-Soviet Caucasus countries. In Azerbaijan, UNDP Accelerator Lab applied “design thinking methodology to re-imagine the city for people with disabilities by asking them how to make the city friendlier for them. This is a human-centered approach”.32 A  lot of ideas were crowdsourced through hackathons.33 Certainly, it is also in the nature of UNDP development work to focus on people needs ­assessment before designing the projects, but human-centered projects were designed not only by UNDP. Eurasia Foundation was aiming to implement ‘social innovation’ for people by people. Papazyan says: “People are the most important actors and project should be designed in a way to have the impact on people”.34 For example, in Azerbaijan, the ‘social innovation’ project ‘coronavirus self-checker bot’ was designed to inform people about the actions they need to take if they think they have symptoms of COVID-19. The bot also helped health authorities to take queries online and thus free up doctors to take care of patients in a critical healthcare situation. The bot was allowing individuals to decide for themselves what to do once coronavirus symptoms are detected. It guided users through the process and informed them about the next steps they can take to protect themselves. In Armenia, a ‘social innovation’ project ‘Smart bin’ allowed local communities of Ararat City to manage their waste to reduce waste management fees. The project introduced a gamification technique to allow competition among people. On the www.smartbin.am website, people could track those scoring the highest to have better chances to win the communal services fee reduction. Indeed, individuals experiencing the problem were able to design solutions they needed. People-centeredness allowed engaging with individuals/­citizens whose voices had not been heard before, and who had been disregarded by the prior development programs. In other words, this criterion of social innovation was fully met in Armenia. Mkhitaryan points out that there are of course many incarnations of social innovation, but in the context of the UNDP we are thinking about it as a human-centered approach to development, as an approach which enables you to do things in a faster, more effective, and more user-centric way.35 Again, SIPs in Armenia through their human-centered design allowed for problem identification and enhanced inclusiveness. They supported the d­ iscovered ideas and reinforced their initial introduction into the local ­context. Human-centered design has also allowed for leadership over SIPs of individuals aware of the insights of the problem.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  109

For instance, the ‘social innovation’ project ‘ARVest art education board game’ was launched in the capital of Armenia – Yerevan – by the group of ­enthusiasts led by Lia Mkhitaryan. The team with a background in art ­education through research and personal experience has identified the issue of low interest in arts education in Armenian public schools. It has been ­established that the process of arts education, and in particular visiting ­museums is not interesting for students although Armenian museums exhibit plenty of valuable cultural heritage. To solve the problem, the ARVest art education board game was created. The idea behind the board game was to make art education interesting for students, who could now learn about arts and culture through the game. The project started within the system of public schools in Yerevan, with the plan to spread it throughout public schools in other cities. The project leader even received several requests from the ­A rmenian diaspora abroad to deliver the game to kids living outside of Armenia. The ARVest art education board game project met the human-­centeredness and inclusiveness criterion since it was first designed by individuals who ­experienced and knew the problem, and second because it was focused on the students not interested in arts education due to the old-fashioned education programs on this subject at public schools. In other words, it was an unconventional approach to educate on the subject and to solve the problem by providing a more engaging education methodology that was able to improve the quality of arts education at public schools. In this regard, Lia Mkhitaryan notes: We have been working in this area and we knew the state of arts education in public schools, we see how few people come to museums because museums are not an exciting place for them to be. We examined the state of academic education in arts, we examined the poor state of interest in arts despite the incredible art heritage that Armenia has, we have been working in the area of arts in Armenia for five years, so we had extensive knowledge of what is lacking and what is not.36 This is one example of how Kolba Lab and the UNDP, in practice, tried a human-centered approach. As Marina Mkhitaryan emphasizes: “solutions are usually coming from grassroots level meaning involvement of citizens ­ rmenia and crowdsourcing of ideas for innovation”.37 Saying that, SIPs in A ­applied a human-centered approach in their activities. Now, projects d­ esigned based on human-centered principles allowed for more inclusiveness and ­better local service provision through strengthening local capacities that primarily address peoples’ needs. Crowdsourcing (similar to the Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan) of people’s ideas has also made projects more inclusive. Another example, now of inclusiveness of SIPs, is the ‘Seeing Hands’ ­project. The Kolba Lab website describes the project as follows: Traditional support methods for people with disabilities include welfare benefits provided by the government, reserved job posts with public

110  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

a­ dministration bodies, and tax reductions for employers. ‘Seeing Hands’ is turning this paradigm on its head by actually empowering the people they work with, and who, in turn, work for them.38 ‘Seeing hands’ project has been a novel approach to provide opportunities to people with disabilities by creating jobs that they can make, and this way generate income. The people-centered design of SIPs is the element of ­social innovation generation mentioned by Howaldt et al. (2014) as a social practice-related feature, allowing the invention to happen on the local level (Howaldt et al., 2014). In that sense, in Armenia, new elements introduced by the new human-centered project allowed for focused interventions in problematic areas articulated by individuals experiencing problems. In fact, as it is suggested by Shove et al. “novelty can come out of any key elements of social practice, namely physicality (sociality and physicality of carried out practices), materiality (artifacts, things, technologies in and for social practices), and competences (know-how, practical knowledge, background knowledge, etc.)”.39 Since, in accordance with social practice theory, this criterion of social innovation worked well in Armenia, it allowed for more end-users’ participation. In Georgia, the Service Lab has also successfully applied human-centered design. Sesil Verdzadze recalls the experiences with 112 service and the ­redesign of the Public Service Development website where this criterion has been used: We asked the community and tailored the services so that they respond to the needs of these communities rather than following the ­government’s perspective. Most of the time services developed by the government are not user-friendly and do not properly address people’s needs.40 Sandroshvilli also explains that she can hardly imagine any social innovation which would not be human-centered. She emphasized that SIPs, if human-­ centered, “have not just addressed social needs, they also allowed people to become the part of the solution. This is the defining factor of social innovation”.41 Sandroshvilli believes that though the user-centric design is the requirement for social innovations, it might not be enough to generate a workable solution to the problem. She says: You might know what the problems is, but you might not know what the solution is. The combination of external expertise and internal ref lection combining with the skills’ set, which is lacking somewhere. This is what makes the difference. You cannot make the person who has the problem entirely make responsible for the solution. This is the process of internal understanding what the solution can be with the external experience that is already existing externally. Independently taking the side does not work. You need to put them together.42

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  111

A good example of a ‘social innovation’ project that applied a human-centric approach is the ‘Co-designing 112 Emergency Service for People with Disabilities’. The existing 112 service had not been adapted to the needs of the people with disabilities before this issue was raised by them. Once experiences of people with disabilities using 112 service were studied, the service was re-designed in accordance with their needs so that they could easily use them. 3.2.3 Networking and collaboration: occasional government support and active role of civic activists/CSOs Networking and collaboration has been a priority of SIPs in Caucasian countries. Though UNDP Accelerator Lab, Eurasia Foundation, Kolba Lab, Mardamej Social Innovation Camp and Service Lab have tried to establish cooperation with different actors, partnership with the government has not always worked well. Thus, the networking criterion has been mainly met, with some limitations. Seyidzade from the Accelerator Lab Azerbaijan ­mentioned that it is nice to cooperate and network with partners, but if it does not ­happen for some reason, it does not stop social innovation. Even a business sector within corporate social responsibility (CSR) can do social innovation without anyone’s help if they have money.43 In contrast to Seyidzade’s opinion, Papazyan from EF Armenia, coordinating Mardamej Social Innovation Camp, believes that collaboration and networking are required for social innovations. She says: All projects should have partners. Networking is very important. It is not efficient to take everything on own shoulders. One of the key advantages of SCOs sector activity is the willingness to cooperate with government and business in order to have more impact on the environment. Mardamej usually collaborates with local government representatives. At least to receive permission to do something at local level.44 Interestingly, the point Papazyan makes about receiving permission from ­local governments to do local SIPs is similar to the context of Uzbekistan in 2012– 2014. Usually, back in 2012–2014, the role of the local government in SIPs in Uzbekistan was limited to granting permissions and being aware of projects’ essence. However, in Armenia their role was different. Papazyan gives an example of the Smart Bin, which demonstrates the difference. She explains: For example, one of the project teams wanted to install a smart bin. Participants created the smart bin to recycle bottles, plastic and glass. Municipality supported them. In order to encourage citizens to sort and drop bottles to the smart bin, a website45 was created. Anyone could visit

112  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

the website, register, get the ID code and after that anyone could dial the code on the device, which was installed on the bin and ­collect points. The individuals with the highest amount of points received a­ nnual c­ ommunal fee reduction from the municipality.46 Earlier, the UNDP and Kolba Lab in Armenia have encouraged ­networking with different actors to assist in the generation and implementation of SIPs. Also, Kolba Lab engaged with government employees through the local ­governance contest, to allow them to come up with ideas for SIPs. With regard to successful cooperation, for instance, Lia Mkhitaryan, while discussing her ‘social innovation’ project, mentions a partnership that was established with other organizations to successfully implement the project’s idea: “we created this art game that was supported by Kolba Lab, and we had a bunch of other partners collaborating on the extension of the idea together with Kolba Lab”.47 In general, Kolba Lab encouraged partnership and c­ ooperation between projects’ leaders and local organizations. Kolba Lab itself has also tried to establish partnership ties with local governments. Thus, Marina Mkhitaryan emphasized the collaboration between Kolba Lab and local governments that she considers very beneficial, and mentions that such collaboration could emerge from competitions Kolba Lab ­arranged for the individuals working for the government at national and ­local levels: Kolba Lab also organizes competition between ideas inside the government. There are a lot of people working in the ministries who know how the system works from inside. Consequently, these people have interesting insights on system’s problems. By fixing these problems one could make the system more efficient, allowing for better services provision to citizens. People participating in Ideas’ Competition inside the government have otherwise no chance to speak up. Once Kolba Lab announces the call for ideas inside the government, these people can speak up and propose their ideas to improve government services.48 Networking and collaboration possibilities were clear gains for SIPs since established collaborations helped to extend beneficial cooperation beyond the ‘social innovation’ initiative launched jointly by Kolba Lab and the UNDP. Establishing partnerships, primarily with the government, was a ­priority for Kolba Lab and the UNDP. SIPs tried to inject themselves into the ­government to strengthen its capacities and make it closer to citizens. By running SIPs in cooperation with governments (local and national), Kolba Lab and the UNDP intended to improve the quality of local services and make governments more responsive to citizens’ needs. According to social practice theory, networking is regarded as the key for imitation of inventions. Since social innovation is regarded as a social practice prompted by certain actors or their constellation (Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 26),

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  113

in Armenia partnership was a cornerstone of local SIPs. To recall, Mulgan and Murray also emphasize the role of relationships among different actors as the ground for social innovations generation (Mulgan & Murray, 2010). UNDP has tried to introduce new practices through “purposeful intervention” (Howaldt et al., 2014) of SIPs. While partnering with the government (and local organization), SIPs were designed as Conger suggested “as the new social inventions that might be introduced into the new settings” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 37). For instance, in Armenia, the introduction of ‘social invention’ projects happened when the UNDP and Kolba Lab supported SIPs in governance through local governance innovation contests for individuals working in the Armenian government. Clearly, networking and collaboration among different actors was one of the features of social innovation gleaned from the experiences of developed, developing and post-­ communist countries (Mulgan & Murry, 2010; Barraket et al., 2015; Howaldt et al., 2018). But in Armenia, a particular role of the government in such cooperation was identified. 3.2.3.1  Intermittent support of SIPs by the government SIPs in Armenia have been supported by the government intermittently. Once the project was launched within Kolba Lab’s local governance innovation contest, it usually received government’s support. For instance, a Chat bot for the protection of consumers’ rights was offered by the government employee Lusine Tovmasyan working in the office of the Prime Minister of Armenia, and first tested in Yerevan. The problem of consumers’ rights violation was the focus of the project. The Chat bot could offer an online consultation and provide relevant information on consumers’ rights for anyone who felt that his/her rights were violated. It has been established that consumers usually do not know about their rights, and do not have a time-efficient mechanism of learning about the consumers’ rights protection laws, while the Chat bot provides such an opportunity. This project was consumer-­centered but ­introduced by a government employee in the frameworks of a local g­ overnance innovation contest. By holding the contest jointly with the ­government, Kolba Lab intended to nurture ‘policy entrepreneurs’ in ­governance – people who could innovate inside the government. Thus, Tovmasyan has implemented her project in the government institution. She recalls: Government was very active in collaboration with Kolba Lab to ­implement this project. It was good for government, because sometimes it is a good approach to implement innovations as a day-to-day activity of the government. That is why the government is eager to implement these projects. It was also good for public servants to pause their daily routine and think a bit what they would like to do to make their work more interesting and innovative.49

114  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

This was not a single example of government support. Lia Mkhitaryan also talks about government support of her ‘social innovation’ project, ARVest arts education board game: “when we first got the idea that we should create such a product, we requested an appointment with the Minister of Culture. We shared the idea with him, he was amazed and gave us his verbal support”.50 However, government support was not always available. Marina ­M khitaryan says: We had times of ‘honeymoons’ and times of practical ‘divorce’. The ­government has changed during the project implementation. We had dramatic changes in the government. It was for the best, but it also means that the relations we are building on a personal level were lost.51 Thus, in Armenia, as opposed to social innovations strategically supported by the governments in the post-communist, developing and developed countries, SIPs were initiated without permanent government support. SIPs progressed successfully when/if government support was available, and ­ experienced ­d ifficulties when/if it was not. Kolba Lab and the UNDP were able to help in designing and ­launching inventions and establishing partnerships for SIPs. Thus, social relationships (Domanski, 2017), involvement of different actors in SIPs’ generation (­Mulgan, 2010; Howaldt et al., 2014), and implementation of SIPs locally, were achievable outcomes. However, collaboration with the government was irregular, and support of SIPs by the government was intermittent. ­Therefore, Kolba Lab and the UNDP tried an alternative option of implementation of SIPs, which was through the cooperation between SIPs’ leaders, civil ­society activists and CSOs. 3.2.3.2  Cooperation between SIPs’ leaders and civic activists/CSOs Since cooperation between the government and individuals leading SIPs was occasional, UNDP and Kolba Lab supported collaboration between SIPs’ leaders, civic activists and CSOs. Kolba Lab had two possibilities to promote ‘social innovations’ in governance. The first was through the engagement with ‘policy entrepreneurs’ working in government entities, as was discussed earlier. Kolba Lab invited them to participate in the local governance innovations contest, to launch SIPs in governance. For instance, the leader of the project on consumers’ rights protection Chat bot, already mentioned earlier, Tovmasyan says that without cooperation between Kolba Lab and the government, my project would have been simply impossible. Now, because my project idea won the local government contest organized by Kolba Lab, I can work on my web application with IT experts, to make it later of use for consumers.52

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  115

The second option was to establish partnership ties between the leaders of the projects and civil society activists and organizations (CSOs, etc.). For instance, Aleksey Chalobyan, another leader of a ‘social innovation’ project, notes with regard to cooperation established due to Kolba Lab’s support: “Kolba Lab put me in contact with organizations that think that our collaboration can be beneficial. Recently, we have met with behavioral scientists, and we plan to cooperate with them in our project”.53 Lia Mkhitaryan also mentions the ­importance of cooperation established between herself and partner CSOs, with the support of Kolba Lab: “we created this art game that was supported by Kolba Lab, and we had a bunch of other partners collaborating on the extension of the idea together with Kolba Lab”.54 Those partners were CSOs that expressed their interest to support the idea of popularization of arts education as an important component of education in Armenia. Another example of cooperation between the ‘social innovation’ project leader and civil society activists is a Taghinfo ‘social innovation’ project led by Gayane Mirzoyan. The idea of the project was to highlight the local ­problems of individuals in Armenia. To do so, the Taghinfo local media platform was created to unite local civic activists and bloggers who could spread ­“micro-narratives about the problems in the locations they live”.55 Civic activists could constantly report about the local problems and attract the attention of the local governments to them. The above-mentioned examples demonstrate that when the cooperation between the government and individuals leading SIPs was impossible, Kolba Lab had been putting more emphasis on partnerships with CSOs and non-governmental partners. These alternative solutions of partnership could contribute to the progress of SIPs in Armenia. In Georgia, in the case of the Service Lab, CSOs were initiating partnerships with 112 service that later approached UNDP to redesign existing emergency services to adapt them to the needs of the deaf. Verdzadze from UNDP mentions that “the initial request was coming from 112 service. They were already communicating to the Society of the Deaf and Hard Hearing. Since UNDP was already negotiating, the Service Lab joined this initiative”.56 Thus, the process of initiating partnerships and networking for social innovations has also worked the other way around. This is remarkable that such a communication channel existed in Georgia and served well for the benefit of SIPs. 3.2.4 Localness and focus on a specific domain: projects with local communities or local authorities All SIPs were launched locally and were aimed at a specific domain, affecting previously neglected individuals and communities. Thus, this criterion of social innovation has been met. In all Caucasian countries, SIPs have been initiated to solve local issues, though spreading the best practices of the projects across the society was desirable. The projects were also focused on a specific domain. At

116  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

the same time, Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan treated SIPs as something “complex and f lexible that requires a specific approach to every specific situation”57 when the project is implemented, i.e. the projects were differentiated as either domain specific or with a scaling-up potential. In this regard, Gulieva says: What is the unit we are talking about? If we talk about social enterprise it is good if it focuses on the certain domain. We also need to look at the cycle meaning who does social innovation and at what stage the social innovation is. If it is a mature unit, it can be diversified and scaled.58 Similar to Azerbaijan’s approach, Armenia’s Mardamej Social Innovation Camp regarded SIPs as opportunities to carry out innovations both in a specific domain and across multiple sectors. Papzyan thinks that “both ­ ­options are possible. It depends on the idea of the project”.59 In other words, although diffusing social innovations was desirable, the projects have usually emerged in one sector, piloted locally. For instance, in Armenia UNDP and Kolba led projects primarily focused on the local governance domain. The UNDP and Kolba Lab had a clear rationale behind this approach. For instance, as Marina Mkhitaryan says: Kolba Lab goes down to the local government level because it finds it easier to work with end users of public services. Solutions were usually coming from the grassroots level meaning the involvement of citizens and crowdsourcing of ideas for innovation.60 The local character of small-scale SIPs was stated on the webpage of Kolba Lab dedicated to supported SIPs. For instance, in the case of the Taghinfo ‘social innovation’ project, it states that “the purpose of the project was to create a hyper-local media platform for Yerevan. Taghinfo is home to a ­community of bloggers and activists who write and spread micro-narratives about their communities”.61 Another example is related to the ARVest arts education board game. Lia Mkhirtaryan pointed out that she and her team started approaching local governments, once they had the support of her project from the Ministry of Culture, and personally the Minister. She says that “with that [the project] they started contacting local communities and local authorities”.62 Thus, this is how SIPs supported by Kolba Lab have met the criterion of localness and focus on specific governance domains. The same was true for Service Lab-supported SIPs in Georgia. Though the vision of UNDP and Service Lab was that “social innovations go through ­several dimensions”,63 examples of the projects such as redesigning 112 ­service for the deaf or public services development website clearly demonstrate that ‘social innovations’ were problem-focused and emerged in one specific sector, e.g. government services.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  117

All in all, localness and focus on the specific domain were followed in accordance with social innovation features, also observed in other countries (Evers & Ewert, 2012; Oosterlynck et al., 2015; Howaldt et al., 2018). Also, in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, both high and low-tech local SIPs have been striving for more citizens’ participation, while broader participation of individuals in SIPs is ensured only by using ICTs. 3.2.5  Use of technology: extensive application of ICTs In designing solutions to existing social issues, ‘social innovation’ project teams applied ICT skills and developed websites, mobile apps, bots, etc. ­A lthough, in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, supporters of ‘social innovation’ agree that ICT application is becoming a requirement64 and can help,65 they also believed that ICTs are not compulsory for social innovations.66 Nevertheless, Kolba Lab’s webpage states, and interviews with Kolba Lab staff confirm, that “almost all SIPs (12 out of 14) used ICTs”.67 It is a particular feature of social innovation that is not always attached to all social innovations. However, in the case of SIPs in Armenia, ICTs were used extensively, and therefore this criterion has been met. A good example of using ICTs is a consumers’ rights protection Chat bot tested in Yerevan. The core of the Chat bot is a mechanism that allows ­communication with the users of the service and provides them the requested information regarding consumers’ rights. This Chat bot can be downloaded to a mobile phone and used in case of any suspicion that someone’s consumers’ rights were violated. Basically, anyone can chat and ask questions from the Bot. Another example of the use of ICTs in SIPs is in Armenia’s Judiciary system. Ms. Marina Mkhitaryan recalls: “UNDP and Kolba Lab have initiated a start-up within the government, which is an artificial intelligence tool for the Judiciary”.68 Though ICT is very convenient for citizens, convincing local governments to employ ICTs in SIPs has not always been an easy task. There was a certain level of resistance from local governments that did not want to introduce ICTs. Therefore, sometimes, Kolba Lab worked with local governments to absorb the costs associated with the introduction of ICT solutions in governance. As George Hodge says: It was not something particularly innovative. I would even say, it was quite obvious that the local government should introduce the ICT tool. But they did not want, because it was costly for them. Kolba Lab ­absorbed this costs and tested this solution for the local government.69 In Azerbaijan, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government wanted UNDP’s Accelerator Lab to design an all-digital healthcare platform. In the end, UNDP and the Ministry of Health of Azerbaijan decided to look

118  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

at ways of transforming healthcare delivery by the power of digital technologies. ‘Social innovation’ project ‘E-platform providing healthcare professionals with free online training courses and certification programs’ was aimed at supporting healthcare workers. In Armenia, the ‘social innovation’ project ‘Smart bin’ has also applied digital technologies such as a website and ID codes for Ararat inhabitants. A lot of ICTs were employed by SIPs in Georgia. For instance, Sandroshvilli mentions that “when designing and testing the tool for the deaf we had IT people throughout the whole process and the workshop. That created a process when everybody was on board”.70 Another example is when Service Lab helped to generate SIPs and gained experience in developing mobile ­applications. Verdzadze recalls: For instance, when the Schengen zone introduced the visa-free regime for Georgian citizens, the problem was to calculate 90 out of 180 days’ Georgian citizens were entitled to stay visa free in the EU. We decided to offer a solution that would ensure Georgians do not violate this ­regime. We developed an application calculating their lawful stay. Public ­Service Development Agency developed an e-signature and a digital seal for companies, and so on. Service Lab is also engaged in the development of user-friendly technology and software.71 Obviously, the use of technologies (ICTs) was at the core of SIPs in Caucasian countries. As one of the features of social innovation, digitalization of socially innovative services is not entirely new. However, in post-Soviet Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia extensive use of ICTs in SIPs has been a new approach to development aid that ensured inclusiveness and broader participation of citizens, which has become a true breakthrough for post-Soviet countries. ICTs allowed crowdsourcing of ideas for SIPs, helped to address social problems and governance issues by engaging with communities and offer quick and cost-effective solutions. To fix a problem, there was no need anymore to petition a government agency and wait for a long time for a response. This is how ICTs integrated into SIPs have affected the everyday life of ordinary citizens locally. 3.2.6 Social impact: Distinctive understanding and inconsistent attempts to assess it It was no doubt that social impact is a required criterion for social ­i nnovation,72 otherwise “it would not be a social innovation”.73 Since SIPs in post-­Soviet Caucasus were launched relatively recently, it is still too early to gauge their social impact. Over time, some projects that have managed to be diffused across the social system can probably have remarkable ­social i­mplications. B ­ esides this, assessing social impact from SIPs was also ­challenging. As ­Seyidzade from UNDP says: “actually, this is the biggest

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  119

problem. People ­often claim that they do social innovation, but when we ask what the impact is, we do not see it”.74 Another issue was that the ­organizations supporting ‘social innovations’ have not intended to measure their impact. Gulieva explains how she sees the social impact measurement and emphasizes that UNDP Accelerator Lab has not focused on measuring the social impact: There should be two basic components to measure social impact. One is the quantitative indicator, like how many people were reached, how many products were produced. Another is the qualitative component that should help to understand how social innovation changes the life of people. Another way is to use impact evaluation methodology like having a control group and the group that had been using social innovation product to see the difference. That is the ideal world. But we do not focus on measuring social impact.75 In Georgia, UNDP and Service Lab also experienced problems with ­measuring social impact. To measure it, as Sandroshvilli says: “they received feedback on their project. It was difficult to measure the impact. No proper measurement was developed and applied”.76 In this regard, Seyidzade mentions that the major challenge towards the evaluation of social impact from SIPs is the “absence of good quality data”.77 Once data is available, measurement is no longer an issue. Since the whole discussion is boiled down to the lack of data, Seyidzade thinks that “the discussion that social impact could not be measured is overrated. All the discussions about non-measurable social impact started in 1980s, but basically what you need to measure is data”.78 Despite the points made above, adequate assessment tools to evaluate the social impact from SIPs were not applied. All this prevented SIPs from meeting the social innovation criterion in full. However, Kolba Lab has sometimes applied NESTA Standards as a ­measurement tool of the UNDP and Kolba Lab, to measure social ­impact. Hodge says in this regard: “we used NESTA standards of evidence as a guide”.79 Though Hodge mentions that NESTA standards of evidence were used, the study could not find evidence that they were constantly and ­consistently applied in all SIPs. Individuals leading SIPs have also sometimes used their own measurement tools, which was an attempt to have qualitative or quantitative (or both) measurements of social impact from SIPs. For instance, Tovmasyan says with regard to the Chat Bot project: As a measurement tool of the impact we will monitor the number of written complains to the government body in charge of the market ­regulation. We will evaluate how it has changed quantitatively and qualitatively, and probably then it will become clearer what kind of impact this application had on this sector.80

120  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

While discussing her project, Tovmasyan indicated that measuring its i­mpact locally is problematic, even if the measurement tools would have been available: In the local context, it is quite difficult to measure the impact on local communities, because in cities people are more active and the life is therefore different. In local villages everyone knows everyone and every transaction is usually oral and not contractual. Usually, people talk to solve their issues. I do not think they report violations.81 The problem of measuring social impact has been recognized by the Kolba Lab, too. As a problem of making and measuring social impact, Mkhitaryan mentions that Kolba Lab could not manage all factors inf luencing the possible social impact from a ‘social innovation’ project. She says: In practice, solutions picked up by Kolba Lab go through very tough selection process and scrutiny, and the difference is only to what extent selected solutions have expected social impact. The impact they produce depends on many factors, including human factor, workload of the person who is generating ideas, but not ready to implement them, readiness of the system to absorb etc. Kolba Lab tries to manage it, but it was not always the case.82 All in all, social impact measurement tools were used inconsistently in ­A rmenia and have not been allowed to adequately judge the possible social impact they make. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the chance for SIPs to make a social impact and social change in the future. A positive sign is that in Armenia certain standards (NESTA standards) of measurement of SIPs’ social impact (Puttick, 2013) were applied, though inconsistently. In Armenia, SIPs have been experiencing problems with the measurement of social impact similar to other countries, where social innovations have been implemented quite successfully. For instance, in India (Chowdhury, 2010), in Uganda and India (Asadova, 2013), in Italy (Howaldt et al., 2018) measuring social impact from social innovations was found problematic. Scholars could not agree whether there are any adequate measurement tools available to assess social impact (Bassi, 2016), or there are various assessment tools that could be opted for relevant social impact evaluation (Osburg, 2012; Puttick, 2013). Besides this problematic aspect hindering the possibility to measure social impact, in post-Soviet Armenia, the UNDP and Kolba Lab have considered social impact from SIPs not as something satisfying social needs, but as social relationships that help to identify and eventually solve a social problem. 3.2.6.1  Social impact as new social relationships for problem solution The UNDP and Kolba Lab regarded social impact as the possibility to ­identify the social problem and to create new social relationships to resolve it. In this

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  121

regard Mkhitaryan from Kolba Lab says: “provoking social relationships and showcasing problems and possible solutions was the purpose of SIPs we supported. This is how we wanted to make a change”.83 In fact, small-scale SIPs have considered establishing new social relationships and partnerships for problem solutions as a huge impact the projects can do. For instance, Lia Mkhitaryan leading an ARVest arts education board game project states: As a result of our project, we we able to establish contacts with many museums across Armenia. We also managed to meet the Minister of Culture, who supported us. We were able to make him aware of theissues our local museums were facing as people with valuable insights on the problem. Now we have a lot of partners willing to support us and our project. This is how we make change.84 Kolba Lab’s intention to make social impact and the example of ARVest arts education board game are not the only cases where social relationships for problem solutions were necessary. In the case of consumers’ rights Chat Bot, relationships between the government official and IT experts helped in the implementation of the project. Without those relationships, the project would not have been possible. Thus, by establishing such relationships Kolba Lab and the UNDP intended to connect more actors by SIPs to demonstrate that such a collaboration can be beneficial for everyone. This perspective has been different from the one on social innovations in other developing and post-communist countries where social impact was assessed in terms of addressing social needs (Barraket et al., 2015; Howaldt et al., 2018). In Armenia, Kolba Lab certainly intended to make a change and envisioned it as the ultimate goal of SIPs, however, it has been the process of the project implementation and social relationships emerging in the course of it that constituted social impact in the governance realm. Kolba Lab remains the only example of gauging social impact with ­comprehensive evaluation instruments in the Caucasus. In all other cases across the region measuring SIPs’ social impact was not prioritized by donors. Despite the clear understanding of the need for social impact, its measurement has been on a very low level. 3.2.7  Scaling up: some possibilities to diffuse the projects Scaling SIPs in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia has been challenging. ­Nevertheless, some SIPs have managed to advance to that stage. In ­general, promoters of ‘social innovations’ were uncertain if scaling of SIPs was needed. In Azerbaijan, Gulieva says that “only certain needs should be satisfied by the projects”.85 In Armenia, Papzyan supposed that the “pilot project after ­having good results can be scaled up. It is not the most important criterion for an effective social innovative project, but a desirable one”.86 ­A nalogically to Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Georgia, the Service Lab and UNDP have

122  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

not considered scaling as something necessary. Quite to the contrary, ­Sandroshvilli says that “sometimes very small initiative which makes a huge difference does not need to be system-wide”.87 For instance, in Azerbaijan, a ‘social innovation’ project ‘A Video Doctor App’ has been piloted in 15 polyclinics in the capital city of Baku. This project, if owned by a government organization (e.g., Ministry of Health), could have been successfully diffused. In Armenia, a ‘social innovation’ project ‘Footprint’ is building on the idea of making non-­ accessible buildings more accessible. The project is being implemented in Syunik, Gegharkunik, Ararat and Kotayk regions of Armenia, and in case it proves successful, it could be scaled up. In Georgia, SIPs such as on ‘112 emergency service re-engineering’ or ‘Rustavi game for participatory governance’ have been designed either for services across Georgia (e.g., 112 service) or locally (in the city of Rustavi), and the diffusion of these initiatives has not yet started. It was clear to the UNDP and Kolba Lab that, as Marina Mkhitaryan mentioned: “not all social innovation solutions are sustainable, sometimes solutions play the role of catalysts of the process”.88 In practice, due to the lack of commitment from the policymakers (government entities), SIPs in some cases have not been scaled. But, as has been discussed ­earlier, ­networking with civic activists and CSOs proved to be useful for the ­g eneration and scaling of SIPs. Consequently, due to the factors described above, the scaling up criterion has been accomplished partially in Armenia. This problem was highlighted by Mkhitaryan as follows: “if there is a change-maker in the government we are working with, is the one who is leading the whole process, and any changes are creating the risk to the ­impact of the project”.89 When scaling-up of a ‘social innovation’ project was ­successful, it had its positive implications. Thus, if/when the commitment of policymakers/government/local organizations was present, a ‘social innovation’ project can be efficiently scaled-up. Alternatively, as in the case of Taghinfo, local civic activists and bloggers supported the ‘social innovation’ project and contributed with their stories and news about issues in the neighborhoods they live. That helped to shed light on problems and direct local governments’ policies towards them. ­Taghinfo tried to change the local government’s focus from the national problems to the local problems requiring their immediate attention. Numerous SIPs in Armenia have not yet achieved the scaling stage. For instance, Hosanq.info has been just prototyped to test the project locally in Yerevan.90 Other projects, for instance, ‘Seeing Hands’, were planned to solve a local problem of helping visually impaired people in Yerevan.91 However, aforementioned projects like ARVest arts education board game or Taghinfo that managed to cooperate with CSOs and civic activists, and received (though not always) government support, show signs of progress towards diffusion Taghinfo published 170 local stories across Yerevan, and

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  123 92

is now expanding its operations, while, ARVest arts education board game project that started locally in Yerevan, is now supposed to be expanded on public schools across the country. According to the Kolba Lab’s webpage: “in perspective, we plan to use the game might in public schools as additional material for arts education”.93 Evidence collected from the interviews and documentary analysis in post-Soviet Caucasian countries suggests that there was sometimes a possibility for SIPs scaling, however, it was difficult to diffuse a new invention to the degree of becoming a new social practice. Diffusion of any new social practice involving changes of a day-to-day routine, beliefs, cultural patterns and institutions has not yet been registered. As it was stated earlier, similar to other cases of post-Soviet countries, diffusion or scaling of SIPs could be possible, when/if the government supported them. This support might enable institutionalization possibilities for SIPs. When the government’s support was not available, CSOs and civil society activists could support the projects and help in their diffusion and institutionalization. 3.2.8  Social change: something that is required, but hard to achieve Social change as the process of change in the social structure of a society in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns, associated social actions, and ­conscious awareness has not happened, so this criterion of social ­innovation has not been met in Caucasian countries. Naturally, every organization ­involved in ‘social innovations’ agreed94 that making social change is ­required95 to judge the success or failure of social innovation. It was understood and acknowledged that SIPs “should bring about social change”.96 As Seyidzade says: “Whenever social innovation ends up without social ­impact and ­social change, we end up with unsuccessful projects. I think ­social i­nnovation should be assessed strictly by outcomes”.97 Sandroshvilli from ­Georgia agrees that “if it is successfully conducted, social innovation is always a change-­making thing”.98 Clearly, the UNDP staff in ­A zerbaijan and G ­ eorgia, as well as EF employees in Armenia realized that social change should be the ultimate goal of ‘social innovations’. The issue was boiled down to the path ­a llowing to achieve that ultimate goal. One way offered by UNDP ­Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan was “creating an ecosystem to allow social innovations to h ­ appen”.99 Another option is to invest in social entrepreneurship. As S­ eyidzade mentions: We also work on social entrepreneurship. I believe that there is no s­ustainability without money. Funds are motivating innovations,and we need to bring it into the culture that making money is not something shameful even if someone does social entrepreneurship.100 As a rule, discussions about ecosystem and financial sustainability are rooted in the business-oriented approach to social innovations. This approach is not

124  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

completely wrong, but it lacks the holistic understanding and application of social change. In reality, social change requires more than just the sustainability of a ‘social innovation’ project. It would demand a change of social reality through the modification of institutions and cultural patterns. Prototypes of SIPs tested in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia might be promising in terms of enabling some organizational and inter-sectoral arrangements required for the institutionalization of ‘social innovations’. Certainly, SIPs in the Caucasus are too immature to expect it very soon, but in the long run some of them can lead to social change in society.

3.3 The developmental feature of SIPs: empowered citizens, transparent and accountable local governments The primary intentions of the UNDP Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan, UNDP and Service Lab in Georgia and UNDP and Kolba Lab in Armenia were to embrace new methodologies applicable to the development aid. The development framework that guided UNDP’s activities has been used to ensure that development targets are addressed through SIPs. Mkhitaryan confirms this perspective and emphasizes that the UNDP understood the need for a new approach and tried to engage with citizens and governments differently: The UNDP understood the need to embrace new methodologies and technologies in our development work. Kolba Lab acts as an interface, working with active citizens and the government to develop, test and incubate their ideas for reforms, social start-ups and development projects.101 Hodge also emphasized that the UNDP and Kolba Lab tried to have a d ifferent approach to development, and source ideas for development ­ differently from the existing developmental approach of the UNDP. He says: “it [social innovation] was a different approach to sourcing ideas for development”.102 In Azerbaijan, the ‘social innovation’ project ‘Evdeqal’ was designed to launch a one-stop-shop portal for all e-services to allow wider service ­provision and additional export opportunities for local producers. In ­Georgia, a project on participatory governance in the city of Rustavi is another ­example of the development initiative for improving good governance locally. Actually, Accelerator Lab, Kolba Lab and Service Lab were intending to make government services more transparent, and the government ­itself more accountable to citizens. UNDP-supported Labs were aiming to ­empower citizens so that they can be involved in decision-making regarding the ­services they need from the government, to solve pressing problems. In fact, the principal idea behind SIPs was to allow individuals to identify problems that concern them and offer relevant solutions. This is how ­Accelerator Lab, Kolba Lab and Service Lab envisioned development through the improvement of capabilities (Sen, 1999) of people. In that sense, developmental

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  125

c­ riterion gleaned from the human development theory, was met in Azerbaijan, ­A rmenia and Georgia. SIPs were designed to solve local issues and involve previously n ­ eglected individuals and social groups. For instance, the consumers’ rights protection Chat Bot was supposed to serve for the protection of citizens’ rights by employing ICTs, so that every citizen could be informed about his/her consumers’ rights, and assure that these rights are protected. Another example discussed earlier is the ARVest arts education board game that was aimed for the improvement of arts education in public schools in Armenia. In Azerbaijan, the ‘social innovation’ project ‘inclusivity hackathon’ helped to develop tech solutions to increase the social inclusion of people with disabilities.103 In Georgia, a project on re-designing the 112 emergency service for people with disabilities was similar to the one in ­A zerbaijan. Overall, more transparent and better-informed decision-making is a clear developmental target that SIPs intended to achieve. Sen (1999) calls them instrumental freedoms such as transparency, social and political opportunities, as well as assuring civil rights, democracy and political liberty. The whole idea of ‘social innovation’ in development backed-up by the UNDP and Labs was about the interaction with previously neglected actors, as Hodge says: “the idea of this approach was to work with different stakeholders, different actors in civil society. One that not usually get involved in development project, but might be interested in solving a particular problem, if well-articulated”.104 Moreover, SIPs helped to empower citizens and combat corruption. For instance, Chalobyan talks about his Hosanq.info ‘social innovation’ project, aimed at saving energy in Yerevan’s multi-apartment houses: It [the project] intends to solve a social issue. There is not much of a business model there, and I do not expect any revenues coming from it. The project contributes to transparency, and it makes energy saving clearer and more attractive. Maybe in some cases it empowers citizens and fights corruption.105 In other words, SIPs were implied to empower individuals and include them in the development work in order to ensure more transparency and less corruption. Also, Labs and the UNDP should have been resilient themselves in delivering development aid in post-Soviet Caucasian countries. Since they were operating in the governance area which was very sensitive for governments (local and national), the UNDP and Labs had to deal with the government in terms of adjusting to its needs and requirements. As Mkhitaryan says: Sometimes we spent a lot of energy and time to get social innovations supported by the government, because there was certain resistence. Kolba Lab was intervening into government’s normal processes ­w ishing to make change which conservative systems tend to reject. We were able to build the trust first providing services to the government, so that ­people there understand that social innovation is not just kids playing

126  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

technologies, but it is an impact and something you bring as a service for the government. Government realized that what Kolba Lab is doing is not an additional burden. It was a long process and we had to play diplomacy to get there.106 In Azerbaijan, UNDP also allied with the government (e.g., Ministry of Health) to deliver digitally driven services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ministry wished to use the UNDP at that moment to establish a healthcare digital service system. Instead, numerous digital projects were launched, such as ‘Coronavirus self-checker bot’, ‘E-platform for providing training for healthcare professionals’, ‘Mobile application for COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment’ etc. In Georgia, the government was open for cooperation with the Service Lab and even called for collaboration outside of the Ministry of Justice where the Lab belongs. At the same time, the nature of UNPD work with national governments requires accommodating the needs and queries of its partners. Indeed, collaboration with the government required adaptation of development work to get the support of SIPs. Sometimes, in order to implement a ‘social innovation’ project, Kolba Lab had to absorb the risks that the government (local government) did not wish to take. Hodge recalls in this regard: What they [the local government authorities] were doing was just ­using the funds that we invested in them to test different technologies in Gyumri to select the one which was the best for Gyumri, and then the city government would make an investment in that. For me it was quite an obvious thing for the government to do, and basically, we a­ bsorbed the risk of the government research process, and there was not any ­particular innovation involved.107 The above-mentioned evidence from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia demonstrates how the UNDP and Labs envisioned and fulfilled the developmental criterion, as well as adapted their development assistance to the existing governance area framework in those countries.

3.4  Social innovation interchanged with other concepts 3.4.1 ‘Social innovation’ intermixed with ‘civic/public sector innovation’, ‘e-services’ and ‘social entrepreneurship’ concepts UNDP, the Accelerator Lab, Kolba Lab and the Service Lab regarded ­social innovation within the development context which explains the focus on stimulating positive social implications through social innovations. It has to be emphasized that definitions of social innovation used by the UNDP and Labs in three countries were mostly identical. In fact, there was a substantial degree of agreement about what social innovation should look like such as something making social impact, being human-centered in design and novel in a social context.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  127

Interviews, however, have also revealed that the “social innovation” term was intermixed with other terms. Substitutions seemed to be clearer for ­donor organizations and leaders of SIPs, who applied different terms locally. Before focusing on this aspect, though, let us look at what Hodge u nder ‘­ social innovation’, emphasizing it has to be something means ­ happening outside of the public sector, otherwise it [social innovation] should be named differently, offering the term “civic and public sector innovations”.108 3.4.1.1  Civic innovation and public sector innovation Hodge distinguished between innovations inside and outside the government (or public sector). This differentiation is remarkable in terms of a specific ­application of the meaning anyone could use for the social innovation concept, and once again demonstrates how different the application of the term has been in practice. Hodge says: Social innovation tends to be outside of the government. Something similar would be called a civic innovation. This is an innovation connected to society within the government. And then, overlapping with the civic innovation goes the public sector innovation, which is more clearly defined within public sector.109 Hodge suggested a substitution for “social innovation” based on the areas (inside or outside of the government) where it [social innovation] could be applied. This was the only distinction made by Hodge in relevance to SIPs. Khatuna Sandroshvilli mentions an absolutely identical idea of the Service Lab’s application of ‘social innovation’ in Georgia: We speak about public sector innovation rather than social innovation. The way we approach it is to give a new mind- and skill set to the civil servants to encompass different modalities of working with diverse ­sectors and people. I have not thought about the difference between social and public ­sector innovations. We are primarily focus on doing something of value to a larger group of people. This could be done through the improved tools or methodologies used. By the way, we have two labs in G ­ eorgia. One is the Service Lab on the Ministry level and we have a Local ­Governance Innovation Lab of the city of Rustavi under the mayor office. It is more independent and self-reliant and evolving than the Service Lab. It is difficult to get the legitimacy for the Service Lab activities at the national level. At Rustavi, we have self-governing city with greater independence. Mayors have institutionalized the Hub. They officially gave twenty percent of the public servants’ time for experimentation with doing things differently. Thus, in Rustavi those processes develop naturally.110

128  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

Other substitutions were used by the leaders of small-scale SIPs. Their understanding of social innovation was based on the nature of the projects they led. If the project used technology, then social innovation became a technological tool to solve social issues. If the project was aimed for relationships changing government policies, then social innovation would be something that makes changes in those policies. 3.4.1.2  E-services involving technology Interestingly enough is how the leaders of SIPs envisioned and understood the social innovation concept. Their understanding was more focused on the aspect of novelty, new disruptive ideas, and technology that enables social innovation. For instance, Tavmasyan emphasizes the change of traditional thinking and making services more efficient. She points out: “social innovation for me is a tool that eventually changes the mindset of its users, by using technological, IT aspect which is aimed to reduce process and make services more to the point, targeted and effective”.111 Similarly to this opinion, Sandroshvilli from Georgia argues about ‘social innovations’ as the solutions changing the mindset: Changing mindset. We work on the behavioral level. If you want ­someone to change the behavior, you need to have a mental model of what the new behavior is like. It is true for any changes to happen. The change should go through the mental process of accepting this change. That is why I say solutions are not always obvious to the people, who have experienced the problem.112 Mirzoyan highlights both technological advancement and novelty of the idea that ‘social innovation’ project brings: Social innovations are projects that use technologies. But first and f­oremost, ‘social innovation’ is a novel approach to the existing problem. For example, we used to look at state budget as something regulated and defined by the government. But it is time to look at it from the citizens’ perspective. Maybe it is not something new in general, but for me innovation is to look, say at a state budget, from different perspective.113 Thus, both Tavmasyan and Mirzoyan underline the newness of the idea in the social context and the technological component that in combination e­ nable a ‘social innovation’ project. Dolmajian goes further in his explanation of what ‘social innovation’ is. He argues: Social innovation is an innovation that affects everyone, citizens and government alike. There are two types of innovation. The first is when you need to create something from scratch and the second is when you try to replicate a successful innovation.114

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  129

Actually, Dolmajian means that innovation might be ‘innovative’ only for a certain social context. Importantly, the role of technological and digital ­aspects has been put forward in his elaborations on ‘social innovation’. Definitions of social innovation provided above are pointing out that social innovation is about changing existing methods and practices. New practices as a core of social innovation, changing existing traditional approaches of ‘business as usual’, have been explicitly applied by small-scale ‘social innovation’ projects in Armenia. Since the essence of small-scale ‘social innovation’ projects was to facilitate positive implications through the introduction of new ideas into social contexts, those ideas were supposed to lead to new social practices able to bring about the intended changes. 3.4.1.3  Social entrepreneurship As a rule, ‘social innovation’ was interchanged with entrepreneurship or ­social entrepreneurship. In Azerbaijan, the Accelerator Lab looked at ‘social innovation’ from both the development and general perspective. Generally, ‘social innovation’ was treated as the entrepreneurial way of solving social problems: If we look at social innovation in general it would be one definition, if we look at social innovation in development it would be another definition. To me, social innovation in general relates to the new entrepreneurial ways of solving the emerging issues. This definition consists of two parts. The first part is the demandthat needs to be satisfied in an entrepreneurial way. The demand is more related to the market demand. From this perspective, social innovation is more related to business opportunities and innovative solutions offered by entrepreneurs. Social innovation in development might not be specifically correlated with demand or have an entrepreneurial aspect in it at all. In this regard, I would say that social innovation is an innovative way of addressing community needs. In Azerbaijan, we apply both approaches. Let me give you an example. If there is a waste management problem in the country, and one startup offered a solution to this problem and also monetized this solution, this will still be a social innovation. Another issue is the scope, meaning how wide these projects are spread throughout the country. As for the social innovation in development we at UNDP make, we do not monetize our solutions. On the scale from 1 to 10 combining both of them I would say the level of it is around 6 or 5.5.115 In Georgia, the Service Lab had analogous experiences with ‘social innovations’. Verdzadze says: Some people here understand that social innovation is a startup where you employ the individuals from vulnerable groups. Government or

130  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus

UNDP understanding of social innovation is totally different to that of CSO’s and the people.116 It is fair to mention that defining social innovation is per se a complicated task. It is even more difficult to come up with a proper definition when the term is shaped by the development agenda of a donor organization. Clearly, as was mentioned already, in post-Soviet Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, SIPs have been combining the entrepreneurial approach with social problem s­olving. As Seyidzade mentions: “For me social innovation wherever it happens is connected with social processes, like social impact, and actors involved in social work for the sake of social progress”.117 In Georgia, as per Verdzadze: Social innovation from the Service Lab perspective was producing the services, projects and outcomes directly targeting citizens, improving availability of services for those living in remote areas, and living standards of people in general, including people with disabilities, ­m inorities and so on.118 The same is true for Armenia, where ‘social innovation’ was considered as something not purely business oriented, but rather focused on community development, as Papazyan from EF says: Social innovation is a process which has a social impact aiming to i­ mprove wellbeing of certain group of individuals and communities, and here is the main difference between IT start-ups and social innovation projects. There is no business idea behind the social innovation projects. Mardamej social innovation camp is a part of a bigger project which is implemented in the local governance area. We try to solve community issues and encourage young people to be a part of community development. This approach is very useful and important especially for remote and underdeveloped communities. Social innovation is the way of problem solution which has a social impact on communities or certain circles of individuals, does not contain business interests and each component of a project is implemented with collective efforts and ownership towards the communities.119 In fact, SIPs as low-tech initiatives have occupied their niche in Armenia. While supporting SIPs by Kolba Lab, the term ‘social innovation’ was usually interchanged with the ‘social entrepreneurship’ concept. For instance, ­M khitaryan says: “social innovation is disrupting traditional, stereotype methods of approaching issues and finding innovative solutions to them ­instead. It may connect areas that otherwise would not have been connected. It can be called a social entrepreneurship”.120 Mkhitaryan used the term ‘social entrepreneurship’, because she assumed that what her ARVest arts education board

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  131

game is designed for could be better described as social entrepreneurship as it was supposed to apply entrepreneurial skills to solve a problem of arts education in public schools in Yerevan. Entrepreneurial skills were aimed at producing a product, namely arts education board game that later was made available at the market for everyone. The terms substituting social innovation concept, including ‘social ­entrepreneurship’ concept, were used due to the relative scarcity of knowledge about social innovation, and the need to use the wording that was ­either already applied in the local context, or was clearer for project leaders. ­Substitutive terms varied based on the goals of the entities applying them. But the problem with the social innovation concept goes beyond its practical application in post-Soviet Caucasus. In fact, the term which is being loosely used is eluding its clarity and might be completely destroyed over time.

Notes

1 See https://acceleratorlabs.undp.org/. 2 See http://servicelab.sda.gov.ge/en/history/. 3 See http://kolba.am/the-lab/. 4 See https://epfarmenia.am/?__cf_chl_ jschl_tk__=pmd_bjpIet6ctEu3nt74anVL ve8BskQqySoa62Pf.rrJ80A-1630680014-0-gqNtZGzNAdCjcnBszQi9. 5 See https://sil.vc/. 6 See http://vxsida.gov.az/en. 7 See http://servicelab.sda.gov.ge/en/history/. 8 See http://vxsida.gov.az/en/page/agentlik-haqqinda. 9 See http://vxsida.gov.az/en/page/layiheler. 10 See https://sil.vc/about/. 11 See https://sil.vc/programs/. 12 See https://azerbaijan-undp.medium.com/finding-opportunities-in-a-crisishow-u ndp s - acceler ator -l ab -i n - ba k u-h a s -m a de - t he -mo st - of-2 0 2 0 16fe53959764. 13 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 14 Kolba Lab, 2013. 15 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 16 See https://epfarmenia.am/project/mardamej-social-innovation-camp?__cf_ chl_ jschl_tk__=pmd_k7udtczYPrQ2_.MH3UkAEplY5MuRgZzi9g6UZtgtt. E-1630780644-0-gqNtZGzNAfujcnBszQZR. 17 See https://epfarmenia.am/project/CELoG. 18 See https://epfarmenia.am/project/mice. 19 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 20 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 21 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 22 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 23 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 24 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 25 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 26 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 27 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 28 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021.

132  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus 29 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 30 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 31 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 32 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 33 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 34 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 35 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 36 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 37 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 38 Kolba Lab, 2013. 39 Cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 17. 40 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 41 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 42 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 43 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 44 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 45 See http://smartbin.am. 46 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 47 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 48 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 49 Interview, Lusine Tovmasyan. Via Messenger. January 2018. 50 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 51 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 52 Interview, Lusine Tovmasyan. Via Messenger. January 2018. 53 Interview, Aleksey Chalobyan. Via Messenger. March 2018. 54 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 55 Hyper local media, 2016. 56 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 57 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 58 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 59 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 60 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 61 Kolba Lab, 2016. 62 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 63 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 64 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 65 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 66 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 67 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 68 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 69 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 70 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 71 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 72 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 73 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 74 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 75 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 76 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 77 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 78 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 79 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 80 Interview, Lusine Tovmasyan. Via Messenger. January 2018. 81 Interview, Lusine Tovmasyan. Via Messenger. January 2018. 82 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017.

SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus  133 83 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 84 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 85 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 86 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 87 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 88 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 89 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 90 Kolba Lab, 2018. 91 Kolba Lab, 2013. 92 Kolba Lab, 2016. 93 Kolba Lab, 2018. 94 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 95 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 96 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 97 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 98 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 99 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 100 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 101 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 102 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 103 See https://azerbaijan-undp.medium.com/finding-opportunities-in-a-crisishow-u ndp s - acceler ator -l ab -i n - ba k u-h a s -m a de - t he -mo st - of-2 0 2 0 16fe53959764. 104 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 105 Interview, Aleksey Chalobyan. Via Messenger. March 2018. 106 Interview, Marina Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017. 107 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 108 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 109 Interview, George Hodge. Via Messenger. January 2018. 110 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 111 Interview, Lusine Tovmasyan. Via Messenger. January 2018. 112 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 113 Interview, Gayane Mirzoyan. Via Messenger. March 2017. 114 Interview, Arthur Dolmajian. Via Messenger. March 2018. 115 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 116 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 117 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 118 Interview, Sesil Verdzadze. Via zoom. January 2021. 119 Interview, Tatevik Papazyan. Via zoom. April 2021. 120 Interview, Lia Mkhitaryan. Via Messenger. December 2017.

References Asadova, E. (2013). What does social innovation mean for the developing and developed ­countries? Tashkent: Westminster International University in Tashkent. Barraket, J., Mason, C., Friel, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2015). Evidence review: social ­innovation for health equity promotion. Victoria: VicHealth. Bassi, A. (2016). Social innovation policies with the involvement of social economy o­ rganizations survey evidence from European countries. Bologna: University of Bologna. Chowdhury, I. (2010). Scaling social innovations: the case of gram vikas. INSEAD. ­Fontainebleau: INSEAD. Domanski, D. (2017). Exploring the research landscape of social innovation. Dortmund: A deliverable of the project Social Innovation Community (SIC).

134  SIPs in post-Soviet Caucasus Evers, A., & Ewert, B. (2012). Social innovations for social cohesion. In: Nicholls, Alex; Simon, Julie; Gabriel, Madeleine (eds.) New Frontiers in Social Innovation ­Research (pp. 107–127). Palgrave: Macmillan. Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical ­approaches to social innovation - a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: ‘­ Social innovation: driving force of social change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schroeder, A., & Zimgiebel, M. (2018). Atlas of social ­innovation: new practices for a better future. Dortmund: European Commission. Kolba Lab. (2013, January 1). How we select the best from the rest. Retrieved ­February 13, 2017 from http://kolba.am/en/post/selection-criteria-2016/. Mulgan, G., & Murray, R. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: The Young Foundation. Osburg, T. (2013). Social innovation: solutions for a sustainable future. Berlin: Springer. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Sarius, T., & Wokuvitsch, F. (2015). Local social innovation and welfare state restructuring: analyzing their relationship. Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. Puttick, R. (2013). NESTA standards of evidence: an approach that balances the need for evidence with innovation. London: NESTA. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

4 Generation, features and assessment of ‘social innovation’ projects supported by different organizations in post-Soviet Eastern Europe 4.1 Generation of ‘social innovation’ projects: how it worked In Ukraine and Moldova, ‘social innovations’ have been supported by different organizations including the European Union (EU), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Eurasia Foundation. They also enjoyed the diversity of civil society organizations (CSOs) lobbying ‘social innovations’, open data and civic technologies to ensure better user-centered governance and greater transparency. For instance, the All-Ukrainian Centre for Social Innovations to Combat Poverty that was founded in 2013 with the support from the Austrian Government, the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine and regional administrations. The Center’s objective was to teach regional novice organizations to work effectively and eradicate poverty on a local level.1 Also, SocialBoost, Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration Services project (TAPAS project)2 and Eidos3 fostered cooperation between governments and citizens. The largest donor sponsoring ‘social innovations’ was the UNDP, though acting differently from the way it did in other post-Soviet countries. The UNDP in Ukraine did not have a structure or a project directly implementing small-scale ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs). Instead, it financially and at methodologically supported organizations operating projects that the UNDP deemed as being ‘social innovations’ worth implementing for development in Ukraine. In fact, the UNDP in Ukraine discovered social innovations after the UNDP Regional Hub suggested the term as a new logic for designing development work. As Maksym Klyuchar from the UNDP recalls, the “Istanbul Regional Hub and Bratislava Regional Center were suggesting exploring a new term which was ‘social innovation’. UNDP Ukraine tried it”.4 The UNDP independently conducted hackathons and innovation labs. As for local governments and communities, the UNDP supported

DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-5

136  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

local initiatives through competitions focused on solutions for them. Two ­examples from the municipal innovation lab were mentioned by Olena Ursu from the UNDP: Moya Oselya (Dolyna) allowing citizens of the municipality who live in multi-apartment houses to track the condition of their houses and plan for financial support of improvements, if needed. My e-school (­Novograd-Volynskiy) allowed parents to better engage in the education of their children and to track their success through online tools.5 Several web-based projects were also supported by the UNDP. These ­projects allowed citizens to report problems, corruption, poor services provision, and other matters of concern. Not all the projects were sophisticated information and communications technology (ICT) solutions, but many of them were technologically adjusted to be user-friendly. They have been generated in the ‘Open ideas for UA’ event in Ukraine. Ursu mentions several solutions and their purposes: The web-based application ‘POIZDka’ (TRAINride), allows train p­ assengers to report a problem and file a complaint if it is not addressed. ‘I Gave a Bribe’ (later merged into CorruptUA) allows people to report and map the instances when they were asked to pay a bribe.6 The above-mentioned examples of projects demonstrate that as a rule the UNDP in Ukraine supported projects aimed at innovations in municipalities and local communities through events organized for this purpose. In this regard, UNDP’s primary focus was on promoting open government. Therefore, it supported SIPs aimed at implementing the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Initiative in Ukraine. In this context, the UNDP was primarily interested in introducing e-governance practices in local ­governments. For instance, the UNDP reported about: 13 best practices of local self-governance bodies that were awarded in categories “Electronic Services”, “Electronic tools for local community” and “E-democracy”. Three out of eight winning municipalities were UNDP partners Ivano-Frankivsk (“Electronic line” and “Introduction of municipal electronic registry for admission of children to kindergartens”), Vinnytsya (“Internal Portal of Vinnytsya City Council”) and Voznesensk (“Introduction of electronic document f low and internal portal in executive bodies of Voznesensk City Council”).7 In general, the UNDP supported a countrywide process of introducing e-governance elements. E-governance was regarded as being an effective tool allowing for more transparency, better public management, greater citizens participation in local governance and promising anti-corruption instruments. This corresponded very well to UNDP’s program goal and development

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  137

framework on promoting democratic governance. Significant emphasis was given to the quality of municipal services. Research identified numerous socially innovative ICT-related projects supported by the UNDP through special competitions or as the result of cooperation with Ukraine’s national authorities. For instance, the UNDP in partnership with the National Centre for E-Government and the State Agency for Science, Innovation and Informatization “has launched a web portal of the OGP, and created a hackathon called ‘Open Ideas 4U’ d­ edicated to ideas on implementation of the Initiative. Mobile applications such as ­‘SemaSearch’, ‘Swiss knife’, and ‘B-beeper’ have been implemented”.8 Many of the mobile applications were designed to inform Ukraine’s citizens about military actions, dangerous situations and potential threats against people, to allow them to prepare and organize to ensure their own safety. The UNDP tried to attach its projects to any organization – otherwise they would not have sufficient time and opportunity to be scaled. Therefore, the UNDP looked for organizations with the required institutional capacity to deal with small-scale SIPs. In accordance with UNDP’s expectations and goals, SocialBoost was selected for such a cooperation. According to SocialBoost’s webpage: SocialBoost — is a tech NGO started in 2012, promotes open data and coordinates the activities of more than 1,000 IT-enthusiasts, biggest IT-­ companies and government bodies in Ukraine through hackathons for socially meaningful IT-projects, related to e-government, e-services, data visualization and open government data. SocialBoost has developed dozens of public services, interactive maps, websites for niche communities, as well as state projects such as data.gov.ua, ogp.gov.ua. SocialBoost builds the bridge between civic activists, government and IT-industry through technology. Main goal is to make government more open by crowdsourcing the creation of innovative public services with the help of civic society.9 SocialBoost uses hackathons for launching ICT solutions. It works with civic, public and private organizations to promote open data, transparency, ­citizens’ participation in the government policies, as well as the integration of ­applications created by civic activists, into the government. A wide range of applications and IT products have been developed by SocialBoost to target diverse issues, such as human trafficking from the eastern part of Ukraine to mapping damaged infrastructure of active war zone regions. For example, according to SocialBoost: In 2014 organization has developed and launched together with the Ukrainian government: National Open Data Portal (data.gov.ua), Open Government Partnership Portal (ogp.gov.ua), applications based on open data, such as: edumeter.com.ua, citytransport.com.ua, tvoemisto.org. ua, zloch.in.ua. It aims at supporting the creation of the Civic Startups, ­developing the Volunteer Network and the Open Government Data.10

138  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

One of the largest projects, the 1991 Incubator, was also launched by ­SocialBoost. Its priorities were “to help convert open public data in real s­ tartups that provide services to Ukrainian citizens, businesses and public authorities”.11 SocialBoost got funding from private and international organizations, including the UNDP. It cooperated with the UNDP in launching hackathons and developing ICT products for the public sector in accordance with its priorities. Many projects supported by SocialBoost were ­implemented in partnership with national governing bodies and/or ­non-profit ­organizations in Ukraine. Denis Gursky, the co-founder of ­SocialBoost, describes the ­organization’s mission as follows: SocialBoost is officially registered as a non-profit organization. SocialBoost is a pipeline. We do a lot of things ourselves; we have a lot of projects where we develop tools, and we do capacity building programs. But when we are talking about national challenges, incubations, contests for start-ups or civic groups, we call this the pipeline and we just provide absolutely free access for donors and funders to the pipeline, based on the will to find a particular project to solve a particular problem.12 Thus, SocialBoost’s mission and experience of cooperation with local ­governmental and non-governmental organizations matched UNDP’s plans and goals for introducing SIPs in Ukraine. Table 4.1 lists small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP in Ukraine. Table 4.1  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Ukraine Category

Brief description of projects

Anti-corruption

• ‘SemaSearch’ – a web platform for combatting corruption. An anticorruption website that accumulates open source data about the property and business interests of public officials, and analyzes links among them, their relatives and friends, to identify potential corruption risks; ‘I Gave a Bribe’ (later merged into CorruptUA) – a is a publiclyavailable web resource designed to combat corruption, that allows people to report and map instances when they were asked to pay a bribe. • ‘Open budget visualization’ – an IT tool allowing public access to the country’s budget lines; • ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ – a mobile app allowing citizens to check administrative procedures for service provision, and to report corruption cases; ‘Municipal Open Budget Platform’ – a platform allowing public access, transparency and accountability in the local budget; ‘Open Data Bot’ – a bot providing open data in a public space; ‘1991 Open Data Incubator’ – an incubator that promotes an open data approach and projects based on open data; ‘Navizor data set’ – an anti-corruption data set; ‘Agri-eye e-data set’ – an anti-corruption electronic data set.

Open data/data visualization

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  139 E-services

Security

Public administration

• ‘POIZDka’ (TRAINride) – an off line complaints opportunity on transportation services; • ‘Moya Oselya’ – a service that allows municipality citizens and dwellers of multi-apartment houses to track the condition of the multi-apartment houses, and to plan for financial support for improvements; ‘My e-school’ – a tool allowing parents to better engage in the education of their children, and to track their successes online; ‘Participatory budget in 63 cities (IT tool)’ – a tool allowing citizens to participate in forming the budgets of their municipalities; • ‘E-cemetery service’ – a service allowing booking places for dead in cemeteries, avoiding corrupted off line schemes; ‘Anchor is me’ – an e-service on energy utilities for households; • Service for local petition/an online service for submitting petitions; ‘Marking dogs in the cities with censors’ – an online service to mark dogs with censors and to follow them if needed. • ‘Swiss knife’ – a mobile app that gathers information from government agencies and informs users about threats ranging from military actions to natural and made-made disasters; • ‘B-beeper’ – a mobile app that maps dangerous spots and informs a user of potential threats and safety measures; ‘ReDonbass mobile app’ – a mobile app providing information about security alerts in Donbass (South-east Ukraine). • ‘One-Stop-Shop Centre for Administrative Service Provision in Novograd-Volynskiy Municipality’ – a service aimed towards developing the environment and physical space of the Administrative Services Provision Center in a way that helps citizens orient themselves in the process of providing the five most popular but complicated services: permits for urban construction; permits for outdoor advertising; assignment of state social assistance to poor families; permits for cutting and trimming greenery; and permits for the organization of touring events in the city. Through the approach, citizens can identify what goes wrong and have ways to report about cases where their rights were violated.

Source: Table compiled by the author based on the UNDP data.

SocialBoost’s Gursky describes their selection criteria for the small-scale SIPs as follows: We work with donors, partners and stakeholders for Proposition.  particular challenges to do proper wording and collect ­ insights. Deloitte helps conduct interviews with people ­

140  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

from particular industries to understand how they see the challenge. This helps to design a solution to that particular challenge. Prioritization. Then SocialBoost does open calls for ideas to solve any problem. Incubation. We act as mentors subsequently and provide access to our main database of mentors. When we select the best ideas through open calls and applications, we invite people to a related event. At this particular stage, we intend rather see people, not ideas, to understand how exactly they work, how committed they are, what drives them, and other ­ factors ­affecting them. So, we do a Hackathon or a mentorship day where they work with mentors constantly, or organize other types of events where we look at how people work. In other words, at this stage, we select teams that will go to the incubation stage. Implementation. After three months of incubation which includes lectures, mentorship sessions and some fieldwork, we do the final event which is called the Demo Day. We invite all our ­potential investors, donors, and partners. This is where the decision about future funding is being made if we have had any funding in the beginning. If we did not, we just do a Demo Day and then facilitate individual sessions between applicants and different organizations that are interested in funding ideas. This is always an equity-free program – we do not charge any fees for that, we just make sure our pipeline and portfolio perform. We just want more ­successful projects that succeeded, because of our mentorship and support.13 From Gursky’s description, it is clear that the selection criteria of SocialBoost corresponded to UNDP’s human-centeredness requirements for SIPs. Multiple actors and organizations were involved in problem (or challenge) identification and the project selection process. However, ideas matching the challenge were proposed by end-users, not by SocialBoost. The role of SocialBoost, in that sense, is restricted to mentorship and consultancy for selected projects. Importantly, SocialBoost has operated in cooperation with partners, having relationships with different individuals and organizations. Thus, designing the challenge in such a multi-sectoral environment involved various actors, putting selected projects addressing the challenge in the position to suggest solutions to problems, by generating ideas involving multiple sectors/actors/disciplines. While cooperating with partners, SocialBoost operated in accordance with selection criteria established for them, in practice not particularly different

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  141

from those described above. For instance, Kateryna Onyiliogwu talks about the selection criteria for the Open Data Challenge where her organization TAPAS cooperated with SocialBoost: We have criteria and they are identical for every cycle. First is the use of open data, number two is social or anti-corruption impact, number three includes innovation, number four is the existence of a team to implement the project. When we select the projects, we have a selection committee of people from different organizations: from our organization, from SocialBoost, and from the East Europe Foundation. Each organization possesses particular knowledge. This combination of knowledge and understanding across the sectors gives us a clear picture and offers a different perspective on how innovative a project could be. Our expertise helps narrow down what is innovative. But the second standing point is how it solves the problem: can the project solve the particular problem at all?14 In Moldova, the UNDP also supported ‘social innovations’ through the Moldova Innovation Lab (MiLab). It has started from the reshuff ling of public services15 – as its Research Officer Dmitri Belan says. As per the MiLab “the aim [of the Lab] to generate and test safe-to-fail solutions or adapt existing ones so that to contribute in a measurable way to sustainable development”.16 As per the official webpage of MiLab, it focuses on the experimentation, redesigning of public services, engaging with the private sector for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Its mission is supporting the Sustainable Development Agenda, scaling-up successful experiments and collaborating with the Accelerator Labs network in data collection and analysis for SDGs. Thus, it intervenes in the areas of public services, public health, energy, data for development, sustainable employment, etc.17 Selection criteria for SIPs are not explicit in MiLab. Another example of the projects implemented in Ukraine and Moldova are EU-funded initiatives through a Romanian CSO, ‘Close to you Foundation’ (ADV). Elena Vasiliu, the expert on communication and marketing at ADV Romania explains that: ADV is implementing two projects in the sector of social economy in Ukraine and Moldova. One project, EU4Youth – Social Innovation Impact – a strategic partnership, is financed directly by the European Commission. Throughout this project ADV aims to offer training in social entrepreneurship for young people which are at least 18 years old. They will be trained and later participate in the competition presenting their business plan. They will receive financing for their ideas of tackling social problems. Funding amounts to around eight thousand euros oneoff grant, participants also enter a mentoring and coaching program to ensure that their idea is feasible and sustainable. 18

142  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

The funding from the EU is aimed at creating the environment enabling a socialized economy in Ukraine – a combination of business development and social problems solutions. The algorithm for the project participants is simple: training with further application of trained skills within the developed business plans. Vasiliu also says that: The second project will be implemented also in Moldova and Ukraine is a project aimed at offering education and support for social innovations. As such, it does not have a funding component, just educational support and social innovations development. The project is funded by the EU within the Joint Operational Program Moldova-Romania through the European neighborhood instrument. Both projects were implemented through the partners in Moldova and Ukraine. The partners include CSOs and academia.19 As already mentioned, ADV worked through partner CSOs. Additionally, legislation in Moldova has been a favorable factor, while ADV has managed to contribute to the development of new regulations. Vasiliu says: In Moldova, they have a very favorable legislation for the social economy sector. The National Program for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship has been adopted in Moldova for 2021–2025. Our foundation contributed to the creation of this program. The aim is to coordinate the actions of the projects with the actions of the National Program, and to create an integrated platform for young people and entrepreneurs to enter the social economy sector.20 The list of ‘social innovation’ projects in Moldova is covered in Table 4.2. It is remarkable that ADV and donors have not applied comprehensive selection criteria for “social businesses are to put in place. To learn about the needs, ADV looked if the proposed idea has the data from national statistics or other official sources”.21 Table 4.2  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Moldova Category

Brief description of the projects

Donors and ADV EU4Youth – Social Innovation Impact – a strategic supported projects partnership – aimed at supporting youth social entrepreneurship in Moldova and Ukraine to ensure better employment opportunities, social cohesion, inclusion and less inequality; Cross-Border Partnership For The Development Of Social Entrepreneurship – to support education, research, technological, development and innovation.

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  143 Public service reengineering

Evidence-based policy-making

Public service evaluation tool – a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the quality of public services based on people’s insights; Human-centered design guide for public services reengineering – the guide for public servants to institutionalize and codify the expertise on the application of design-thinking methodology. Behavioral experiments for more responsible consumption – to tackle unsustainable and irresponsible consumption of electricity in dorms and household and medicines (antibiotics). Measuring poverty through public participation: multidimensional poverty index (MPI)

Public engagement and crowdsourcing for policy Collaboration with UN Car Feet Management using blockchain – piloting a other UN projects f leet management system using blockchain technology within UN Moldova; Mentorship and project management for Green City Lab – helping perform a horizon scanning exercise for Green City Lab to engage with Chisinau Municipality; Promoting inclusive Labor Market Solutions in the Western Balkans – building up capacities of the public servants on the application of human-centered design in the modernization of employment services in Western Balkans; Supporting EDMITE Project in implementing the first creativity laboratory Innovoter – to design a real-time election visualization tool. Source: Table compiled by the author based on the UNDP MiLab and ARV data.

All in all, it was found that in Ukraine and Moldova small-scale SIPs supported by the UNDP, SocialBoost and MiLab went through an incubation stage. While applying a human-centered approach designed for end-users, small-scale SIPs have absorbed significant amounts of technology and open data. The process of SIPs generation was, in general, organized in accordance with UNDP’s perspective on ‘social innovations’. The UNDP in Ukraine managed to support SIPs through hackathons and municipal innovation lab, cooperating mainly with SocialBoost.

4.2  Assessment of SIPs 4.2.1 Contextually new ‘social innovations’ to change the ‘business as usual’ In Ukraine and Moldova, SIPs enjoyed the ecosystem favorable for new ideas that would tackle existing social issues. Therefore, in both countries,

144  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

international donors funded projects strategically aimed at creating a social change enabling environment. Thus, this criterion of social innovations was met. Certainly, ‘social innovations’ were new for the social contexts of two only. As Belan says: “Social innovations should be new at least in a certain ­social context”. 22 As it is clear from the areas of projects operation, sectors of ‘­social innovations’ application have been overlapping with each other. This is ­because of pretty similar development targets (e.g., public sector reform or anti-corruption) set by the donors in Ukraine and Moldova. The macro-level goal of the projects is to spur social innovations for the development of the social economy23 in this region of Europe. From the theoretical point of view, projects in Ukraine and Moldova were supposed to change existing social practices. For instance, local projects such as ‘I gave a bribe’ or digitalization of land availability at the municipal cemeteries are these types of initiatives. They certainly intend to change the ‘business as usual’ approach persisting in these countries. By applying the data, SIPs should have been re-designing existing practices of public service and making them more user-centered (globally, ‘social innovations’, to be recognized as such, should be helping “to make the developmental change”). 24 It is not yet known whether the proposed ideas will change existing old practices due to resistance that usually occurs when novelties are being introduced. Nevertheless, the critical point is whether SIPs are planned as something at least contextually new and tapping into the pool of the new ideas to bring about change. This is the case in both Moldova and Ukraine. 4.2.2 People-centeredness and inclusiveness: citizen-driven ‘social innovation’ projects for solving problems People-centeredness means that every ‘social innovation’ project in Ukraine and Moldova has been designed with the involvement of people who actually face the problems being solved. The core of the projects was, as social practice theory suggests, a repeated invention that was offered by people as a possible problem solution. The UNDP, EF, SocialBoost and MiLab have helped these inventions to be generated by making open calls and innovation labs for SIPs. For donors, CSOs and especially for the UNDP it was a requirement to support projects led by people from communities with developmental i­ ssues. The donors were striving to offer a new type of development assistance ­focused on citizens-led development projects. Consequently, this criterion of social innovation was met in Ukraine and Moldova. Thus, a human-centered approach to designing small-scale SIPs has been applied in Ukraine. Maksym Klyuchar from the UNDP says about this ­approach that “in reality whatever you call it, it should be citizen-driven and ­ citizen-verified to do things differently, or more efficiently and c­ onveniently”.25 Klyuchar elaborates more about UNDP’s human-­centered

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  145

approach applied in accordance with social innovation methodology. He ­specifically emphasizes the role that users play in designing the service. He says: Previously, the situation with development aid was the following: A donor used to come to the village and state that the villagers need a hospital because their death rate is high, and a donor needs to take care of that. Nobody asked the residents of the village what they actually needed. It was a development project where the money and the donor made decisions. Now with ‘social innovation’, it is different. The donor has to ask the villagers about their needs. Yes, maybe the village needs a hospital, and the death rate is really high, because people do not have access to medical care. But what if the primary need is not a hospital but rather a road, which is also not at the best condition. What if villagers decide that they primarily need a high-quality road, and then a hospital? Based on the human-­ centered approach, the donor has to listen to the people and build a road.26 In practice, in Ukraine, the donors’ funding was extensive and not always used efficiently. A lot of development projects spent funds on activities that could be less costly and more effective if people were able to c­ ontribute t­ hemselves. Oleksandr Krakovetskyi, who served as an adviser to UNDP-supported ­innovation initiatives, emphasized this in regard: Donor organizations spend a lot of money in Ukraine, but I think they waste money. For example, they want to teach IT skills to women in rural areas. I do not think women in Ukraine’s rural areas need IT skills. They need other skills, perhaps? But nobody asked them. Donors had the money for these activities, and they decided to spend it. This is what is going on in Ukraine, and this is why asking people is important.27 As in the other cases reviewed in scholarly literature, the human-centered design of SIPs in Ukraine allowed for a more precise problem identification and enabled greater inclusiveness for individuals from disregarded social groups who are experiencing social problems. In Ukraine it also allowed for spending donor’s funds more efficiently and purposefully, minimizing the wasteful use of donors’ funds similar to that mentioned by Klyuchar and Krakovetskyi. One example of human-centered design is the ‘social innovation’ project providing an e-cemetery service, supported by SocialBoost. E-cemetery offers a service allowing for booking places for the deceased at the m ­ unicipal ­cemetery of Kiev, and for thus avoiding corruption schemes this business ­usually implies. Before this service was introduced, obtaining a place at the cemetery had been a corrupt and non-transparent procedure at the ­municipal level. Introduction of an online service helped to make it more transparent by eliminating information asymmetry between possible users and service

146  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

­ roviders. A team of individuals has invented and implemented this e­ -service, p making it available to the public. The project used the human-centered ­approach, being a solution offered by people living in Kiev and aware of the problem. The fact that it indeed was a mass service, the human-centeredness of the project was even more apparent. Another service developed with the support from SocialBoost and the UNDP is a ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ mobile application that allows citizens to check the administrative procedures of government service provision and to report cases of corruption in the Ivano-Frankivsk municipality. This ­mobile application developed by a team of enthusiasts living in the city ­a llows for a citizen-centric approach to local government services. Now every ­individual can check the procedures of a particular local government service, and immediately, through the mobile application, report on corruption cases. This should lead to improved and less-corrupted local government services, accountable to every citizen of Ivano-Frankivsk. In Moldova, MiLab has also supported multiple SIPs meeting the ­human-centeredness criterion. Human-centered design of services was the core of the reshuff led public services and the intended change brought about by the projects. Belan recalls in this regard: We have had a set of projects for the redesign or reengineering of public services for the application of human-centered approach. For instance, we have worked on the redesign of the maternal benefits, social ­services for mothers who have just given birth and they had to apply for this services through the National Chamber of Social Insurance (NCSI). We were trying to look at this service from the perspective of internal and external users. We were working with the public servants within the NCSI. We were trying to understand where the bottlenecks were, identify the potential ideas and co-create final solutions together with the stakeholders. As a result, we have developed a couple of prototypes and tested them. We piloted those prototypes to evaluate how they work in real circumstances. Consequently, we had a clear understanding what worked and what should have been refined in our proposed solutions. Similar approach was applied for the redesign of other services. We call it an application of the human-centered design in order to improve or increase the efficiency of the public services.28 MiLab tried to use the available data innovatively and come up with new ways of applying it for development purposes. This went beyond public services redesigning, as mentioned by Belan. Now, the data crowdsourced from ­people and ref lecting their problems was showing a certain level of ­engagement with them to generate new solutions. Belan says: We are also working with alternative data. We were trying to design a more comprehensive indicator to measure poverty in Moldova because

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  147

previously our indicators were more focused on finance. They were not taking into consideration different aspects of social infrastructure like ­access to healthcare, quality of education etc. Based on this idea we ­decided to elaborate on such more comprehensive indicator that would ref lect all these aspects. We identified the beneficiaries based on different criteria - financial income, rural/urban residence, social status (married, have kids, etc.), age, gender and many others in order to elaborate a comprehensive poverty measurement indicator. We were trying to understand what the factors contributing to poverty in Moldova are through collective intelligence approach – appealing to the opinions of the stakeholders to co-create solutions to this issue, to identify the key factors contributing to poverty from their perspective.29 From the theoretical perspective, the UNDP-supported SIPs in Ukraine have emerged as inventions created to solve local problems. They were aimed towards introducing new practices in governance. As a new approach to ­designing development projects, the UNDP could help nurture projects that inject novelties into the existing social reality in Ukraine and Moldova. This has happened through locally designed SIPs prompted by people experiencing problems, or, in other words, ‘citizen-driven’ projects.30 Thus, the application of human-centeredness while designing SIPs in Ukraine and Moldova, in accordance with the social practice theory, has been accomplished. 4.2.3 Networking and collaboration: government support and active civil society organizations The UNDP, SocialBoost and MiLab intended to encourage cooperation between different actors in the private, government and non-government sectors. Usually, leaders of ‘social innovation’ projects could be allied with CSOs and companies from the private sector. In Moldova, MiLab collaborated with government institutions. As Belan says: “MiLab was working with E-governance Center. It was our national partner. Afterwards we were working with the Moldova State Chancellery”.31 Vasiliu has also recognized that “support from the national authorities is very open and active”.32 In Ukraine, collaboration with governments (national and local) has been occasional. The networking criterion has been met in that sense, with some limitations. Networking and collaboration were certainly a priority for the progress of SIPs in Ukraine. For instance, Gursky from SocialBoost mentioned that “they just provide access for donors and sponsors to the pipeline absolutely free, based on the will to find a particular project to solve a ­particular problem”.33 This means that SocialBoost organized its work in a manner allowing for collaboration among sponsors/donors and projects’ leaders, which would help in generating SIPs. One of the options for the UNDP to connect municipalities and citizens was through special events such as Municipality Innovation Labs, where SIPs

148  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

could be generated. The UNDP-run municipal innovation labs allowed ideas from and for municipalities to be nurtured – this was how the UNDP was trying to connect people living in cities to their municipalities, and how citizens were enabled to point out problems within their municipalities. Clearly, the UNDP has given significant emphasis to the quality of municipal services and reported that “innovative projects like crowdsourcing-based ‘ECOMISTO’, or a mobile application for smartphones and tablets with information about Ivano-Frankivsk municipality and administrative services, as well as a hyperlocal social network ‘E-Idea’ in Vinnytsya, were also supported”.34 To support SIPs, SocialBoost has cooperated with different organizations on the stage of the project proposal development.35 This networking and collaboration element has contributed to the advancement of SIPs in Ukraine. Evidence from Ukraine also shows that the UNDP has managed to strengthen local government capacities through cooperation with CSOs. This has helped to connect people to their local governments, making local governments in their turn more transparent and accountable to citizens. This is how partnership can help to scale SIPs in Ukraine at a later stage. As Howaldt and Schwarz mentioned, “social innovation is prompted by the certain constellation of actors in an intentional targeted manner” (as cited in Howaldt et al., 2014, p. 26). This constellation or collaboration of actors is a ground for generating SIPs in Ukraine. Individuals leading the projects cooperate with public and private organizations and CSOs to operate them, and also seek their further institutionalization. In Ukraine, the partnership has also helped to collect insights about a variety of local problems that SIPs could tackle. Thus, the practice of partnership and connection between different actors (Mulgan, 2010) have allowed for the design of SIPs focused on searching for appropriate solutions to existing social problems. 4.2.3.1 Intermittent support of ‘social innovation’ projects by the government In practice, for local SIPs to succeed, they need government support. In Ukraine, however, SIPs were only intermittently supported by the government due to the frequent change of policymakers previously committed to implementing them. As Gursky claims: There is a lot of political turbulence, and this definitely has a lot of ­inf luence on our work. Many of the projects are somehow connected to the government, and political turbulence affects the efficiency of our communication and cooperation. Frequent elections, when the government has to deal with political process rather than executive work, has an impact on all NGO activities.36 However, there were other challenges on the local level that also inhibited the generation of SIPs. For instance, Onyiliogwu points out that “local

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  149

government officials did not know how and why to use the available open data, and why it should be published. They did not see any reason to support our projects using open data”.37 She also points out the lack of political will when it goes about governments’ actions to disclose the data. She says: First of all, not all agencies have the same political will, despite the level of political will is generally high. We have champions that do a great job, but we also have some agencies that did not really disclose the data required to be open according to the law. For the projects, open data is essential. Otherwise we cannot run the project. So, this is another challenge.38 In fact, the intermittent government support of SIPs in Ukraine was d­ ifferent from the situation with social innovations in other post-­communist, d­ eveloping and developed countries, where governments strategically supported social innovations. In Ukraine, the government support was SIPs’ strength and its lack a weakness. For instance, ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ m ­ obile application was supported by the local government of Ivano-Frankivsk, and therefore it could be successfully implemented. The local government wanted to be more transparent and accountable to citizens, and therefore the mobile application worked well. The UNDP and SocialBoost did well in nurturing inventions and ­establishing partnerships for local SIPs. Thus, social relationships (Domanski, 2017), the involvement of different actors in social innovation generation (Mulgan, 2010; Howaldt et al., 2014), and the implementation of SIPs locally were often achievable goals. However, to institutionalize SIPs in Ukraine, the support of government and policymakers was required, and due to different reasons that support was not stable, which made the UNDP look for alternative alliances. 4.2.3.2  Cooperation between CSOs and leaders of SIPs Due to the often sporadic nature of cooperation with the government, the UNDP wanted to have an alternative option to be able to implement SIPs. As such, cooperation between CSOs and individuals leading SIPs was ­established in Ukraine. For instance, Onyiliogwu mentions a CSO, the East Europe Foundation, while discussing the Data Challenge initiative for local open data-based projects. She said: “the Data Challenge in Ukraine is run not just by us and SocialBoost, but also by the East Europe Foundation that manages the funding”.39 The East Europe Foundation has funded projects submitted to the Data Challenge initiative by SocialBoost and TAPAS, and thus has helped these projects to be launched. Vasiliu points out that: CSOs are mostly interested in social innovations and social entrepreneurship, because they saw social enterprises as the instrument ensuring

150  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

their sustainability. But the response from the market was not very good because people assumed that CSOs provide free services and products40. Despite the abovementioned opinions about CSOs, Ukraine’s civil society organizations have had the power to keep the government accountable and more transparent. They could control whether and how well national and ­local governments fulfill their obligations (e.g., transparent budgeting). For instance, the website of one such CSOs, called Eidos, states that “their a­ ctivity is aimed at the analysis and following up the reforms of public funds domain, fighting corruption, improving civic and political awareness, promoting local democracy”.41 Moreover, CSOs and specifically Eidos have participated in drafting and submitting legal documents impacting the Ukrainian institutional context, allowing for the implementation of SIPs. Volodymyr ­Tarnay in this regard points out that “their organization actually participated in drafting the law on Open Data for the national parliament. Later we were able to monitor how efficiently local government authorities follow the ­legislation on open data”.42 Thus, the evidence from Ukraine and Moldova shows that cooperation with the government is both desirable and possible for networking purposes. Also, as in the case of Ukraine, CSOs were engaged in SIPs and created the environment (e.g., enabling open data, drafting laws) where SIPs could later be designed and efficiently implemented. 4.2.4 Localness of projects: a specific focus on solutions of public sector and local governance problems All SIPs were launched locally and were aimed at the public sector in ­ oldova and the governance domain (local governments) in Ukraine. M As Belan ­mentions: “What we were doing in Moldova, we were working in the public sector and of course our work was connected with social area”.43 The projects have been operating on the micro-level, and as per the social practice theory, they have addressed primarily local problems. They have been employing open data to introduce SIPs. For instance, Onyiliogwu ­recalls that “in one of the projects she worked with Ukrainian cities to open up data on the local level”.44 So, in Ukraine and in Moldova, the social innovation criterion on localness and focus on a specific domain (e.g., governance) has been fully met. As was already mentioned, though not being limited in any way by the ­government, SIPs in Ukraine have better progressed when they were receiving government support. The case of a participatory budget system for city halls is a good example of the project led by SocialBoost and later supported by local governments: “SocialBoost developed a participatory budget system for city halls (e.g. kyiv.pb.org.ua)”.45 The project allowed citizens to

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  151

participate in their cities’ budgeting processes, to follow and decide how money from the local budgets is spent. While previously this process had not been transparent and local governments were not accountable to local citizens on the matters of budgeting and spending of municipal funds, now the participatory budget system solves all these issues and allows citizens to co-govern municipal funds. MiLab has initiated public service evaluation and reengineering tools to monitor and evaluate the quality of public services and to design public services based on a human-centered principle. It suggested that public servants employ design-thinking methodology and this way increase their expertise in service provision. But SIPs did not have to be always hi-tech solutions, and some of them have been indeed low-tech. They have also served to ensure the greater participation of citizens in local governance. One such project is the One-Stop-Shop Centre for Administrative Service Provision in the Novograd-Volynskiy ­municipality. Ursu talks about this service: The One-Stop-Shop Centre for Administrative Service Provision in ­ ovograd-Volynskiy Municipality is a service aimed at developing N the environmental and physical space of the Administrative Services ­Provision Center in a way that helps citizens orient themselves in the process of providing the five most popular but complicated services, ­specifically permits for urban construction; permits for outdoor advertising; assignment of the state social assistance to poor families; permits for cutting and trimming greenery; and permits for the organization of touring events in the city. Through the approach, citizens could identify what goes wrong, and find out the ways to report cases where their rights were violated.46 Consequently, both high and low-tech SIPs in Ukraine and Moldova were primarily focused on the solutions to either public service issues (in ­Moldova) or local governance issues (in Ukraine). In Ukraine, they were introduced in local governments to resolve problems of selected municipalities. In other developing countries, social innovations used to begin as local initiatives of community leaders in cooperation with CSOs, through networks and ­interpersonal relationships. Later, as best practices, they could be transferred to the government sector, or adjusted by the government to social ­problems existing in different areas. Social practice theory allows to position local ­‘social innovation’ projects on the micro-level (Howaldt et al., 2014) of the scale of social innovations. In that sense, the theory has not been violated in Ukraine and Moldova. As noted above, to design local socially innovative solutions, projects in both countries have involved citizens by means of both low-tech and hi-tech solutions, but technologies such as ICTs were applied more extensively.

152  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

4.2.5 Use of technology: extensive application of ICTs and open data Ukraine and Moldova had a strong ICT component integrated into the ­design of SIPs. In designing solutions to existing social issues, project teams applied ICT skills developing websites, mobile apps, etc. In Ukraine, almost all small-scale SIPs (19 out of 21) have used ICTs.47 It was understood, however, that social innovation can function without ICTs. Belan from MiLab emphasizes the Lab’s vision of the matter: Technologies can play an important role in innovations, including s­ocial innovations. At the same time, it does not necessarily mean that if there is no ICTs there is no social innovation. There should be a blended ­approach. Social area with technology and after that social innovation can be born. There is social innovation without technology. But, of course technology can help social innovation to boost higher impact to achieve more efficient results.48 Though social innovations have not necessarily embraced a tech component, in Ukraine and Moldova this particular criterion has been fully met. Gursky has also added that “these days somehow ninety per cent of social innovations happen with the extensive use of technology”.49 The extensive use of ICTs for SIPs in Ukraine can be explained by the availability and accessibility of open data in the country. According to ­ ­Onyiliogwu, “central government supports open data because there is a law”.50 Based on this law, government agencies are obliged to disclose data relevant to their activities. The same applies to local governments ­(municipalities). Onyiliogwu mentions that this process progresses unevenly across Ukraine, but there are champions of open data. For instance, she recalls the situation in the Lviv municipality: For example, the Lviv city council compared to other cities in Ukraine. They lead in publishing the data, but they cannot make others in the city use it. They started doing their own analysis of open data, because others did not use it. They have analyzed data from the mobile operator Vodafone to understand the patterns of travelers in the city, and now they plan to use it for planning transport services based on the movements of people across the city. Where is the most traffic, where the least? It is like a social innovation with open data, but here it is also very smart through the government’s use of data.51 Other examples are projects introduced in local governments as mentioned before, including the e-cemetery service and the ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ mobile application that uses ICTs such as websites and mobile applications.

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  153

MiLab has supported the first creativity laboratory ‘Innovoter’ to design a real-time election visualization tool. The tool was a joint initiative of the UN projects (where MiLab has also participated) to co-design the abovementioned ‘social innovation’ project. Thus, in Ukraine and in Moldova SIPs aimed at solving particular s­ocial problems usually were characterized by the employment of ICTs. This ­feature was similar to what was learned from literature about social innovations in other developed, developing and post-communist countries. The digitalization of social innovation is now a common global trend, and the use of ICTs to design ‘social innovation’ projects in Ukraine fits well into this trend, ­constituting another feature of social innovation. The use of ICTs and open data in Ukraine and Moldova is however distinctive in its ability to ­secure the inclusion of people otherwise neglected by policies and development ­programs. Now SIPs are able to involve more citizens, and CSOs can use data and offer solutions to existing problems in cities and communities. 4.2.6 Social impact: a different understanding and an assessment problem Thus far the effect from SIPs was noticeable locally while gauging their social impact in Ukraine and Moldova is premature. This could be well explained by the social practice theory that covers social innovations on micro-, mesoand macro-levels (Howaldt et al., 2014). In Ukraine and Moldova, SIPs have been situated on the micro-level and they can achieve some changes locally. However, to make a social change, projects need to be diffused and institutionalized which requires more time. Another problem is that instruments for assessment of possible social implications incurred by SIPs are not yet developed. Nevertheless, it was understood that “social innovation should make a social impact. It is by default – we cannot achieve any social impact without addressing the needs of stakeholders or beneficiaries”.52 In some cases, even the difference between measuring innovation and impact from innovation was not clear in both countries. Thus, this criterion of social innovation has not been yet met. For instance, Onyiliogwu says: “I do not think one can measure innovation”.53 In other rare cases, there was an attempt to formulate how the measurement of impact from SIPs should look like. Klyuchar formulated his understanding of social impact from SIPs as being a “direct impact on peoples’ lives”.54 But all this can hardly qualify as a cohesive and comprehensive measurement tool. Clearly, in the case of SIPs in Ukraine and Moldova, no evaluation of them has been undertaken, which obviously has been their weakness. This weakness does not permit provable evidence of possible social impact and social change, even if SIPs potentially enable any in the future. The UNDP could possibly apply valuation methods that the organization usually uses to ­measure the impact of its development projects. However, evaluating SIPs

154  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

would probably require a more nuanced assessment method. In this regard, the difficulties of evaluating the social impact of SIPs is not an entirely new phenomenon. To recall, as Howaldt et al. (2018) and other scholars contributing to the SI-Drive project found, measuring social innovation is a ­complicated task, as measurement tools either have not been developed (Bassi, 2016), or have been developed (Osburg, 2013) but have not been fully applied in specific areas where social innovation happens (for instance, in healthcare) (Barraket et al., 2015). Another element of this feature is that the UNDP has considered problem identification and creation of social relationships to solve the problem as the social impact from SIPs. 4.2.6.1 Social impact: problem identification and social relationships for problem solution The UNDP and SocialBoost have regarded the identification of ­ social ­problems and the creation of new social relationships to tackle these p­ roblems as social impacts produced by SIPs. For instance, Gursky talks about ­SocialBoost’s approach to SIPs: “we facilitated individual sessions between applicants and different organizations interested in funding ideas. We just want more successful local projects that succeeded because of our mentorship and support”.55 Onyiliogwu emphasizes that the major task is to figure out what is innovative, and this can help to solve the problem. To make the local project happen these two components have to be connected. She says: The combination of knowledge and understanding across sectors allows us to understand and gives a different perspective on how innovative a local project could be. Our expertise helps to narrow down what is innovative. But another standpoint is how it solves the local problem.56 Klyuchar mentions that the UNDP did not intend to solve any problems while applying the social innovation methodology. He says: We did not think we should solve a problem. Our task, as we saw it, was to listen to the people who have the problem and think about how they can solve it themselves. If they cannot solve it themselves, who can help them? It is usually about cooperation and information asymmetry. Someone has a problem, and someone, probably, has a solution. But they do not know each other. We help them to meet up.57 From the responses of Klyuchar, Gursky and Onyiliogwu, it is evident that the identification of a problem and creation of social relationships to solve it was the intended impact of SIPs. This approach was equally applied to cases of local projects on e-cemetery service and ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ ­mobile application. For instance, the latter was aimed at establishing the

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  155

l­acking relationship between the local government and citizens through ICTs (e.g., m ­ obile application), so that citizens could communicate with local ­government and point out problems (e.g., report about their services or cases of corruption), and thus contribute to the improvement of government services in the city. The effects of these relationships may become manifest later, but the fact that they were able to help in the problem identification and its subsequent solution is what the UNDP and SocialBoost intended to achieve. This approach to social impact from SIPs in post-Soviet Ukraine was different from the perspective on social impact in other developing and post-communist countries, where social innovation was regarded as something that satisfies existing social needs. While addressing social needs by the projects was expected, the primary intended impact from local SIPs was to identify the problem and create connections/relationships that would help to its solution. It was expected that while engaging with SIPs, different ­actors (for instance individuals or organizations), that might have never collaborated before, would now work jointly on a ‘social innovation’ project, ­probably resulting in the emergence of innovative ideas with a potential of being ­introduced into the social context. 4.2.7  Scaling up: diffusion possible, but challenging In Ukraine and Moldova, the UNDP and partner organizations realized that “scaling up is important not only for social innovations, but for all development projects”.58 Scaling SIPs in Ukraine has been possible with some difficulties. Klyuchar from the UNDP recalls them: “it was possible, but difficult that due to the change of the head of government organizations or leadership, earlier agreements about institutionalization of the idea might be cancelled”.59 Gursky has mentioned another, less significant problem as the “challenge of scaling up could be sometimes caused by the increase of the company’s organizational structure”.60 But the primary problem challenging the scaling has been unstable government support. Therefore, the scaling criterion for social innovation has not been fully met in Ukraine. If it is an open data-based solution generated by a ‘social innovation’ project, then its scaling requires the use of an open data-based service. In practice, this has not always been the case. Onyiliogwu said: “even in ­municipalities where open data was available for citizens, nobody used it purposefully. For instance, in Lviv the municipality had very good quality data, but citizens and local organizations did not use it”.61 While discussing the localness of SIPs, it was mentioned that their initial target was to tackle local social problems. While a number of local SIPs have failed to scale up due to organizational issues or the lack of policymakers’ commitment, there still exists an opportunity for the projects to advance to the scaling stage, which is certainly a positive sign for Ukraine. It is known already that SIPs were primarily ­implemented locally with the support from the UNDP and partners, like the earlier discussed ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ or e-cemetery.

156  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

In contrast, when CSOs were active in pushing local governments to be transparent and to make data publicly available in accordance with national legislation, local SIPs such as the one on the participatory budget system for city halls had been successfully scaled across the country. Today, according to SocialBoost’s webpage: “it has been used by more than 800,000 people in 32 cities of Ukraine”.62 Similarly, the active role of CSOs has provided more opportunities in Ukraine for conducting data-driven SIPs that have managed to integrate into governance and further scale across the country. MiLab has also introduced SIPs in public service to improve public service delivery and broaden the use of crowdsourcing for policy design. ­Examples of such projects are ‘Measuring poverty through public p­articipation: multidimensional poverty index’ and ‘Human-centered design guide for ­ public service reengineering’. All in all, the evidence collected in Ukraine suggests that the possibility of local SIPs scaling is there, although it is still difficult to diffuse an idea or ­invention. From the social practice perspective, diffusion is the means of turning imitation into a social practice (Howaldt et al., 2014). Thus, social practice as the central theoretical and analytical unit and the diffusion of ­social practices as a desirable outcome has not been yet achieved in Ukraine – at least it is too early to judge about this. What has indeed happened is that some SIPs had been diffused and institutionalized when CSOs were pushing them forward, making government support available. 4.2.8  Social change: understood, but not achieved In Moldova and Ukraine, SIPs were aimed at making a social impact, i.e., addressing the existing needs. In Moldova, MiLab intended to make a social impact and understood this as causing a social change. As Belan notes: “Social innovations should make a social change. I think it is by default – we cannot achieve any social impact without addressing the needs of stakeholders or beneficiaries”.63 However, social change is the process of change in the social structure of a society in its constitutive institutions, cultural patterns, associated social actions, and conscious awareness. In other words, social change stipulates a long-term process that endures certain social, cultural, institutional, legal, political and other arrangements in the society. These changes in existing social practices have not been found yet either in Ukraine or in Moldova. EU-funded projects have not been fully launched and operated in both countries, so even estimating social change they could bring about is too premature. The UNDP-supported projects, MiLab, SocialBoost, TAPAS and Eidos are definitely contributing to the building of the ecosystem favoring social innovations, giving hope for true social innovations bringing about real social change. We have to clearly distinguish the two criteria, namely making a social impact and enabling social change. SIPs are addressing social problems and

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  157

social needs locally, not enabling social change in terms of a social structure change. They are prototypes that showcase the ‘best practices’ for further ­replication and connection to other new social practices in order to ­u ltimately bring about irreversible social change.

4.3 The developmental feature of SIPs: empowering people, addressing corruption, and ensuring more government accountability The developmental feature has been assigned to every UNDP-supported ­‘social innovation’ project in Ukraine and Moldova. They have been aimed to improve public services, address social issues, combat corruption, and ­a ssure justice and inclusiveness. In other words, they aimed to guarantee more ­political and economic liberty and better public services for citizens, or to improve their capabilities (Sen, 1999). In that sense, developmental criterion gleaned from the human development theory has been met in both countries, predominantly owing to the use of ICTs. Belan describes MiLab’s application of social innovations to the development work as follows: I think that social innovation is a pretty vague notion. In fact, it can have one, two or three definitions and they could be understood differently. So, I will tell you from my experience of working with social innovation in the public and development sector. When we are talking about social innovation in these areas, we mean a set or combination of instruments/approaches which could improve the efficiency of the project results or the development goals we are working on, or which would increase the efficiency of our activities or the processes to tackle the development challenges in a more efficiently manner. To sum up, it is a set of tools and approaches contributing to the efficiency of the ­development work.64 Gursky says that the projects SocialBoost supports are really life changing: “the projects that go out of our pipeline, or are implemented by our in-house team, are truly meaningful and change the lives of many people”.65 How ­exactly do the projects contribute to changing lives? In Ukraine’s case, several examples can be brought up. For instance, Gursky talks about a project that allowed more transparency in road construction. He specifically mentions the project that helps to improve the quality of roads by collecting users’ feedback: “after the project was launched it received over 100,000 users reporting about road quality, which allowed for precise maps of road quality”.66 This is a good example of crowdsourcing and citizen participation in the problem solving process: the project helps to both improve the quality of roads and combat corruption in the road construction sector.

158  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

Another example of a ‘social innovation’ project that ensures ­t ransparency and provides anti-corruption tools is the already mentioned service of ­reserving a place at the cemetery. As the allocation of cemetery plots used to involve a lot of corruption, the E-cemetery web application has helped to ­significantly reduce it and increase service providers’ accountability. As ­Gursky said: “booking a place at the cemetery is very corrupt and not transparently provided. The app helps users to approach this problem ­d ifferently”.67 Another example mentioned earlier is the ‘Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk’ mobile application, which allowed citizens to report about local government services and corruption cases in Ivano-Frankivsk city. The application of ICTs and open data in Ukraine has become a powerful tool for ensuring government accountability, guaranteeing justice and ­reducing corruption. Moreover, the use of open data has allowed for citizens’ empowerment and greater inclusiveness. For instance, Onyiliogwu said ­regarding a project implemented jointly with local courts: “this project aims to give accessible and recent information about court decisions so that any person could find information in the registry much faster, helping to make this service accessible to every citizen”.68 She also mentions that all SIPs have intended to empower citizens and make the government more responsive by bringing it closer to citizens, which has helped to fight corruption in Ukraine. ­Onyiliogwu says in this regard: “all projects empower citizens because they bring open data about the government and how it functions closer to them. They introduce new technology nationwide and fight corruption”.69 As noted ­a lready, SIPs in Ukraine have not always been high-tech solutions. Low-tech projects have also contributed to the transparency, justice and i­mprovement of government services. For instance, the project ‘TRAINride’ managed to help “passengers to raise awareness about their rights at the ­railroads to ­protect them by referring to regulations featured in the catalogue”.70 In Moldova, MiLab was supporting SIPs in public service reengineering, evidence-based policy-making, public engagement and crowdsourcing for policy. Projects such as ‘Public service evaluation tool’ or ­‘Multidimensional poverty index’ have been implemented for the purpose of public sector ­reform in Moldova, using the new poverty index covering aspects beyond GDP. The purpose of the projects was to re-arrange the traditional approach to governance and the provision of public services, as well as to the poverty in the country. The examples mentioned above clearly demonstrate that the UNDP, ­M iLab and SocialBoost have intended, through SIPs, to ensure public control and transparency in governance, to empower citizens, and to guarantee their civil rights (Sen, 1999). SIPs have been aimed towards inclusive development, i.e. offering opportunities to citizens to fully participate in identifying and resolving their problems. SIPs in Ukraine and Moldova have been designed to tackle development problems formulated within the UNDP development framework, empowering citizens, addressing corruption and helping to ­ensure greater government responsiveness and accountability.

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  159

4.4  Social innovation intermixed with other concepts 4.4.1 ‘Social innovation’ intermixed with ‘e-tools’ and ‘civic technology’ concepts In Ukraine and Moldova, different organizations had different definitions of social innovations. Vasiliu from ADV says: Social innovation is tackling social problems by using instruments from the classic business, creating opportunities for communities. Using innovative instruments and the top business know-how. Social innovation is integration of trends and technology into the operational system of the business. The outcome is social even the instruments used are from the business sector. Our long-term goal is to create an eco-system for social entrepreneurship and social innovation.71 Thus, ADV in their EU- funded projects treated social innovations as business tools that can and should be applied to achieve social outcomes. This approach is not new to social innovations in general. The definition above just demonstrates how social innovation can be handled locally to set the ­a lgorithm to achieve social goals. In the case of the definition of ‘social innovation’, different aspects have been emphasized by the UNDP. However, all definitions have elements ­corresponding to social innovation theoretical criteria. For instance, Ursu argues that social innovation is “a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created occurs primarily to society as a whole rather than for private individuals”.72 Klyuchar emphasizes the human-centered aspect that should prevail in any project that is supposed to be called a ‘social innovation’. He argues that: Social innovation is a tried and tested approach. And by tried and tested I mean tried and tested by people, not by the designers of an idea, but rather than by actual future users of this approach. So, it is a tried and tested approach of making a public service, or making a polity closer to citizens, more user friendly and accessible for the citizens, and trying to reduce the costs to deliver this service or make this service faster.73 Accordingly, aspects that any social innovation should absorb (according to the UNDP), i.e. being new practices within the existing social context, having a social impact and being human-centered, are all mentioned by UNDP staff members. Solutions that deliver public services faster and cost less were considered by the UNDP while implementing SIPs. Another important ­ requirement was to make government closer to citizens, more accountable to them, and to enable citizens’ participation in decision-making on the

160  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

governance level. Besides the UNDP, other actors, according to ­Onyiliogwu, should be civil society and the private sector (e.g., start-up community) as those are able to lead to social innovation through collaboration with each other. She says: “I think it [social innovation] is an innovation by civil s­ ociety and the startup community to create things that solve the most pressing ­social problems in the society”.74 Strictly speaking, Onyiliogwu argues that ­social innovations could and should be generated as the result of collaboration ­between different sectors. It corresponds well to the social innovation criterion on networking and collaboration. While SIPs in Ukraine were mostly matching social innovation criteria, the social innovation concept still experienced certain problems while being applied in practice. For instance, the ‘social innovation’ notion in Ukraine was usually intermixed with the process of using e-tools to solve social problems. Two of them were open data and civic technology (civic tech) that enable more e-services, promote transparency, accountability, inclusion, and ultimately democracy. 4.4.2  Open data and e-services for democracy The application of e-tools to solve predominantly governance problems in Ukraine pushed the extensive use of technology for innovation. Digital tools, ICT solutions combined with civic engagement to make governments more transparent, have been regarded as possible solutions to socially significant problems in Ukraine. In principle, the use of technologies does not contradict the essence of social innovation as applied by the UNDP. In the civic sector as well, as Tarnay has pointed out, “social innovation is something useful for society”,75 which implies that social innovation should be socially desirable. SocialBoost has intended to make social change in Ukraine, stressing the use of technology which is a good example of using technologies in projects to solve pressing social issues in Ukraine. Regarding the definition of “social ­innovation” from Gursky’s perspective, “social innovation in 2018 is definitely the reinvention or redesign of social, economic or political processes which directly impact peoples’ lives. And this definitely happens with the extensive use of technology”.76 Though the use of technology in general is recognized as being one of the crucial elements in any innovation currently occurring in society, it is also acknowledged that social innovation could be high and lowtech. Despite this fact, in practice, the term ‘social innovation’ has started to be used less and was later replaced in Ukraine by the term ‘civic technology’. 4.4.3  Civic technology (Civic tech) Over time, the term ‘social innovation’ was substituted by technology-­related terminology in Ukraine. As could be noted from the above discussion, the transition happened while the use of technology started to prevail over lowtech projects aimed at solving social issues. The assumption was that if civic

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  161

technology solves the problem in any area of its application, it could be considered a social innovation. In this regard, Krakovetskyi says: Now we started to change our mind and we moved to civic tech. In my opinion, civic tech is a type of ‘social innovation’ that has an impact to people. It might be a business, it might be a social project, it might be a non-profit. But if it changes the behavior of people or business processes in any area, it might be called ‘social innovation’.77 Gursky adds that ‘civic tech’ is the term operational in the organizations’ work: We do not use the term ‘social innovation’ in our daily work - we rather operate the term ‘civic tech’. I think there is still room for n ­ on-tech ­projects in social innovation. Some of them include, for example, f­ inancial inclusion services for people in rural areas, or maybe the c­onnection ­between prisoners and their families outside of prison. I am still trying to say that these days, somehow ninety per cent of ‘social innovations’ happen with the extensive use of technology.78 In the course of discussion of social innovation in Ukraine, what is ­remarkable is that civic technology has been regarded as a technology project and social innovation as a non-technology initiative. In fact, the ­socio-technological nexus of social innovation is well recognized in theory (Howaldt et al., 2014), meaning that social innovation should be regarded within the socio-technological framework where social issues could be a­ddressed ­ ­effectively by using technology. What would make any civic technology a social innovation, is whether it would become a new combination and/ or configuration of social practices resolving existing problems better than ­established practices. Hence, considering civic technology as a type of or a social innovation, per se, is ­certainly a deceptive perspective. Two aspects should be mentioned in this regard. The first is that, in Ukraine, the UNDP emphasizes that any problem must be prompted, tested and solved by individuals experiencing the problem. This is just another important point for stressing the human-centered principle. The second is that any solution of a social problem in any form, be it a civic technology or any other ICT solution, or a non-technological project requires its practicing by people. Otherwise, any solution is going to be useless. In other words, the solution of pressing a social, economic or political problem might take a technological or non-technological form. The core and essence of social innovation are in the new social practices that make use of new options available for society. Hence, new social practices changing established inefficient social practices can be true social innovations. In Moldova, MiLab designed SIPs with a core technological component. The Lab intended to conduct a project on “behavioral experiments for reasonable

162  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe

consumption of electricity in dormitories” or offer a ­“ human-centered ­design to guide public servants through the public service provision”. The projects should have helped to introduce new practices in the public sector and equip individuals with the instruments to enable change in the area they are ­personally and/or professionally involved. The project on responsible consumption of electricity has been aimed at experimenting and collecting evidence to understand how to change the traditional behavior of electricity consumers. This should help to use technologies and understand how to change the existing social practice. In Ukraine, the terms substituting the social innovation concept were used due to the relative scarcity of knowledge about social innovation, and the need to use the wording that is clearer for users within the local context. Used terms varied based on the goals of the entities applying them, which is a sign of the customized application of the social innovation concept. But, interchanging the social innovation concept with other terms f­ amiliar to local organizations and individuals might contribute to the further ­destruction of the concept. While in Ukraine the UNDP-supported ‘social innovation’ projects have a volitional character, as are the cases in Central Asia and Caucasus, the projects hitherto have not fully gone through the process of ­generating social innovations. They have not accomplished all criteria of social innovations gathered from theory and literature and applied in the study. If the social innovation concept is interchanged with other terms, the UNDP, ­SocialBoost, MiLab and local governments will not be concerned with whether all criteria of social innovation have been achieved. Thus, there will not be any possibility of following up on whether these criteria will continue to be met after UNDP’s support and funding discontinues. This is especially true for the seventh and the eighth criteria of social innovation that require more time to be accomplished. Thus, it will be difficult to discover whether ‘social innovation’ projects became true social innovations over time. In the case of post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova, this is the pitfall that the shift from the use of ‘social innovation’ to other terms causes for the concept.

References Barraket, J., Mason, C., Friel, S., & O’Rourke, K. (2015). Evidence review: Social ­innovation for health equity promotion. Victoria: VicHealth. Bassi, A. (2016). Social innovation policies with the involvement of social economy organizations survey evidence from European countries. Bologna: University of Bologna. Domanski, D. (2017). Exploring the research landscape of social innovation. Dortmund, Germany: A deliverable of the project Social Innovation Community (SIC). Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical ­approaches to social innovation - a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: ‘Social innovation: driving force of social change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: ­ Sozialforschungsstelle. Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schroeder, A., & Zimgiebel, M. (2018). Atlas of social ­innovation. New practices for a better future. Dortmund: European Commission.

SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe  163 Mulgan, G., & Murray, R. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: The Young Foundation. Osburg, T. (2013). Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Heidelberg: Springer. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

See https://www.siceurope.eu/countries/ukraine/profile See https://tapas.org.ua/en/ See http://eidos.org.ua/#all Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. Interview, Olena Ursu. Via Messenger. February 2018. Interview, Olena Ursu. Via Messenger. February 2018. UNDP in Ukraine, 2013. UNDP in Ukraine, 2013. SocialBoost, 2013. SocialBoost, 2013. 1991 Open Data Incubator, 2013. Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/development-­ impact/milab.html 17 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/developmentimpact/milab.html 18 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 19 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 20 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 21 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 22 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 23 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 24 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 25 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 26 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 27 Interview, Oleksandr Krakovetskyi. Via Messenger. January 2018. 28 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 29 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 30 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 31 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 32 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 33 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 34 UNDP in Ukraine, 2013. 35 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 36 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 37 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 38 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 39 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 40 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 41 ‘Eidos’ Center, 2007. 42 Interview, Volodymyr Tarnay. Via Messenger. March 2018. 43 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021.

164  SIPs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe 4 4 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 45 SocialBoost, 2014. 46 SocialBoost, 2014. 47 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 48 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 49 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 50 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 51 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 52 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 53 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 54 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 55 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 56 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 57 Interview, Maksym Klychar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 58 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 59 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 60 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 61 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 62 SocialBoost, 2014. 63 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 64 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 65 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 66 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 67 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 68 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 69 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 70 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 71 Interview, Elena Vasiliu. Via zoom. January 2021. 72 Interview, Olena Ursu. Via Messenger. February 2018. 73 Interview, Maksym Klyuchar. Via Messenger. March 2018. 74 Interview, Kateryna Onyiliogwu. Via Messenger. June 2018. 75 Interview, Volodymyr Tarnay. Via Messenger. March 2018. 76 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018. 77 Interview, Oleksandr Krakovetskyi. Via Messenger. January 2018. 78 Interview, Denis Gursky. Via Messenger. March 2018.

5 COVID-19 and ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries

5.1 Overview: COVID-19 and ‘social innovation’ response in post-Soviet countries The unprecedented health and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have put a lot of pressure on the welfare states in developed ­ ­economies and have increased disparities in developing and poor countries. The virus outbreak became a stress test for the health and social care of post-Soviet countries. After plummeting, the virus soared back in the whole region. The second wave of infection has, however, severely hit particularly poor households as it tore through the countries. Retightening restrictions on residents and businesses created more poverty and social problems. While the coffers of governments were quickly dwindling, they have had to stop shortfalls by tapping emergency donor funds. In this context, the pandemic disabled the provision of health and social care services. Subsequently, this left the population without the highly desired social support and fundamental health capacities. While COVID-19 warnings have reverberated across the region, new ­projects led by civil society organizations and local volunteers have also mushroomed. Their main purpose was to solve social issues and to fill in the gaps in the state health and social care sectors. In this context, it is not surprising that social innovations initiated within the last years in developed and developing countries, as Buchegger puts it, “were seen as a solution for many social problems”.1 For instance, in her study analyzing social innovations in particular developing countries (Uganda and India) and developed countries (USA and UK), Asadova argued that “in developed countries, it is the nature of social innovation characterized by the scarce government resources for certain type of social issues which spurs social innovation”.2 In developing countries, according to Asadova, “the role of social innovations was in their ability to meet social needs”.3 In the post-Soviet context, ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs) were ­supported by international donors, civil society organizations (CSOs) and governments. The major purpose of these SIPs was to enhance good governance and better economic performance through innovations in the public

DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-6

166  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

sector. Despite the possible expectations that donors and local organizations doing social innovations will quickly adapt and offer new SIPs addressing the COVID-19 situation, this has not been always observed. In fact, some occasional new SIPs initiated by the CSOs, civic networks and international development organizations were thriving in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. They mostly encompassed an entirely new scope of civic entities that emerged in response to COVID-19. Their genuine goal was attending to the social needs of people and addressing the breaches in the state health and social care services. Since these projects, emerging from the grassroots level, were sustainable and focused on the needs not addressed by the existing state healthcare and social care nets, they were likely to manifest in an emergence of a new set of social actions. In Kazakhstan, not all donors could rapidly react on the sudden COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, as Daiirbekova from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) says: Unfortunately, we have launched our grant program a bit late, in the fall, when COVID – 19 response was not urgent. In fact, business was quicker in adjusting, CSOs were slow. We and other similar organizations like ours focused on issues related to the COVID – 19 situation. For instance, we were monitoring state purchases, because a lot of corruption due to COVID – 19 was discovered in this area.4 Atakhanova from ARGO recalls a project in Uzbekistan: “In ­Uzbekistan it was a project from the CSO ‘Nihol’ to provide psychological support through the bot to those who needed support in COVID – 19 times”.5 Kudinova from ‘Yuksalish’, managing the P4I projects, also mentions the same project i­mplemented by CSO ‘Nihol’ that launched a Telegram bot to psychologically support people. The bot and psychologists helped to ­answer 600–800 questions. This service was free of charge.6 The government supported ­A stana Hub and also contributed to the establishment of a government platform to combat COVID-19.7 Temirbekov from the Eurasia ­Foundation of C ­ entral Asia mentions that they were able to quickly respond to the ­pandemic. He says: We have responded to COVID – 19. With the support of Chevron, we have launched the project ‘Qolda’ (Kazakh for ‘support’). Later, the ­others followed. This program was organized innovatively because we simplified the process of selecting and financing NGOs. The mission of the program was to demonstrate how NGOs can play a positive role to respond to crisis. The first form of actions was to support vulnerable groups by volunteers and humanitarian aid. The second, we decided to financially support CSOs that support people in times of COVID – 19. The third form was to support media willing and able to communicate

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  167

correctly about the COVID – 19 situation. Combining all three components was innovative for us.8 In Azerbaijan, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) led severalSIPs combating COVID-19. Seyidzade from Accelerator Lab ­emphasized that “because of COVID-19 it was a lot of social innovation ­attempts. The pandemic pushed the eco-system to develop in this direction”.9 Gulieva recalls that “COVID – 19 pushed innovations in the health care ­system”.10 She mentions: In fact, crisis is a driver for innovations. We worked over 6–7 initiatives that we have prototyped together with the Ministry of Health. The government wanted us to completely build this system. We are working on the small-scale prototypes. Without COVID-19, I doubt the interest to these would be high. We also did some digitalization for businesses.11 In Armenia, while the Eurasia Foundation has not initiated any SIPs, Kolba Lab, UNDP and UNICEF launched a number of initiatives to ­formulate COVID-19 response in selected regions.12 The EU-funded project was implemented by the UNDP and Kolba Lab to support CSOs to make ­ them more resilient in times of COVID-19.13 Thus, Kolba supported local ­governments, CSOs and businesses in Armenia with two abovementioned initiatives. In Georgia, Sandroshvilli and Verdzadze point out that the UNDP has not participated in formulating a response to COVID-19. Sandroshvilli ­mentioned that “CSOs created Covider application and online Chat bot where consultations were given by Georgian doctors from Georgia, USA, and Germany”.14 In fact, a handier approach was applied in Georgia towards projects before COVID-19. As Sandroshvilli recalls: COVID-driven idea generation cycle was operational. Urban idea g­ eneration for youth and by youth started with piloting projects-based learning with teachers before receiving funding. We financed the projects for youth already sensitized with the idea of making projects and background research.15 In Ukraine, the UNDP led two initiatives. One is BOOST solutions for COVID-19- a regional acceleration program for social impact ­i nnovation. It will support emerging solutions in the region in the areas of digitalization, economy and health.16 The other is HackCorona jointly with the Digital Transformation Ministry of Ukraine to support projects in (1) ­combatting coronavirus; (2) designing e-services for citizens; (3) promoting s­ocial entrepreneurship; and (4) providing mutual assistance for vulnerable ­ groups.17

168  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

In Moldova, MiLab and UNDP, as Belan says: were testing different approaches. We were thinking how we can use the data from mobile phones in order to forecast COVID – 19 infections. We wanted to use mobile data to plan, for instance, the route of mobile ambulances, to see how people are interacting.18 Below, a more detailed analysis of SIPs formulated as COVID-19 responses in post-Soviet countries is discussed. The analysis covers both aforementioned and new actors that have designed and implemented such projects. As mentioned by Radjabov in his article, “according to the Global Health Security Index (GHSI) scale between 0 (absolutely not prepared) and 100 (well prepared), none of the Central Asian republics scored above 50, a­ lthough their degree of preparedness based on the GHSI score differed”.19 Post-Soviet Caucasian and Eastern European countries were not doing any better, too. Barriers to bailing people out have included missing financial resources and the unavailability of accurate data on the people in need. To fix these policy failures, CSOs and volunteers have jumped in with their projects. In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, CSOs Ezgu Amal and Peshraft were the leading organizations established before the COVID-19 outbreak with a broader goal of helping people in need. Later, they adapted their ­activities to respond to the pandemic. Ezgu Amal is an Uzbek charity ­foundation ­established by volunteers in October 2019 to help people with low ­ income (including children), homeless people and those who need to purchase medical equipment, e.g. for cancer treatment. Within the ‘­Partnership for I­nnovation’ project sponsored by the Eurasia Foundation, ‘Yuksalish’ ­Nationwide Movement and CSO ‘Nihol’, a Chat bot for psychological support of individuals during COVID-19 in Uzbekistan have also been launched. Peshraft is a Tajik public, charitable and non-profit organization established in 2011 with a mission to invest in the human potential of the country. In Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, volunteers have created Telegram and Facebook groups such as Kazakhstan Never Sleeps and Together to help citizens and physicians. While in Azerbaijan and Moldova, the UNDP through Accelerator Labs and the MiLab has supported initiatives formulated as a response to COVID-19, in Georgia, SIPs have been generated in Rustavi and were also primarily aimed at health and social care sectors suffering the most from the COVID-19 outbreak. This chapter conducts critical project evaluations against social innovation criteria to find out whether, and to what extent, they are progressing towards becoming true social innovations. Picking selected CSOs and groups of volunteers for analytical purposes certainly has its limitations. This approach does not allow for the full coverage of informal groups of activists, physicians, experts, etc. gathered in chat

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  169

communities through social networks. It only allows for a snapshot of the civic activism thriving in post-Soviet countries as a result of the pandemic. Therefore, this chapter does not intend to shed light on all activities driven by the COVID-19 response. It does intend, however, to reveal the emergence of new social practices capable, if successful, of changing existing social structures and social realities in post-Soviet countries.

5.2  Evaluation of projects in post-Soviet countries Although the projects selected for a case study largely met the usual criteria of social innovations on newness, human-centeredness, networking, sector neutrality, needs satisfaction and the use of technologies, it is too early to assess if they will meet two other criteria of social innovation: scaling up and social change. They all exhibited a crucial role of CSOs, volunteers and information and communications technologies (ICTs), with an active contribution of government enabling them to make significant gains. 5.2.1  Newness: new actions in the new social context The newness criterion of social innovation, in accordance with social practice theory, has been fully achieved. In post-Soviet countries, it was applied in the sense that there are new inventions or actions responding to the new context that emerged in the wake of the global pandemic which has dramatically changed the existing modalities of operation of the government, civil society and individuals. By default, governments and CSOs were pushed to invent new methods or adapt existing mechanisms and actions, primarily in the health and social care sectors, to save lives and overcome the pandemic. For instance, as the President of the International Federation of Medical Students Association (IFMSA)20 Kamila Narkulova says: we [physicians, members of association] jointly with “Ezgu Amal” ­Foundation install oxygen accelerators for those who needs them based on their health condition: saturation, blood pressure and other indicators, because the state healthcare system is not able to provide everyone with oxygen therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.21 Before the COVID-19 outbreak, installing oxygen accelerators at home was not practiced. Moreover, such an effort by volunteer physicians was an ­entirely new practice which emerged in Central Asia to address the healthcare problems occurring due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The same ­applies for Kazakhstan,22 Kyrgyzstan 23 and Tajikistan,24 where professional ­physicians have organized volunteer groups and offered medical counseling through ­social networks (Facebook, Telegram) on the COVID-19 treatment, and broke stereotypes and skepticism about the virus.

170  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

The same was true for Azerbaijan, where the UNDP supported projects in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Nargiz Gulieva from the UNDP says: We have prototyped six or seven social innovation initiatives in the health care sector together with the Ministry of Health and basically transferred the ownership to them to allow them scaling the projects up, if they find them useful. One of the projects is the online stock management system for the medicines in the country. The government wanted us to completely build this system. If not COVID-19, I do not think the interest in this online system would be so high as it is right now.25 In Moldova, as Dmitri Belan says: We were testing different approaches. We were thinking how we can use the data from the mobile phones in order to forecast COVID-19 ­infection. We wanted to use mobile data to plan, for instance, to analyze interaction patterns among people, improve the planning (transport) for medical stuff.26 In Georgia, the UNDP did not participate in social innovation projects in response to COVID-19. As Khatuna Sandroshvilli from the UNDP says: “CSOs created Covider application and online Chat bot where consultations were given by Georgian doctors from Georgia, USA, and Germany”27 As in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova, ICTs were used extensively in Kazakhstan for the Kazakhstan Never Sleeps28 project and in Uzbekistan for the Telegram channel of physicians.29 In Kyrgyzstan, an online Facebook group called Together assisted doctors at seven Bishkek-based medical facilities.30 Thus, ICTs and social networks facilitated new practices that started emerging in post-Soviet countries during the coronavirus outbreak. 5.2.2 People-centeredness: citizen-driven projects for solving problems A human-centered approach has been applied by all our case-study projects through the inclusion of individuals living in the communities and taking part in solving the existing problems. Individuals themselves were provided with an opportunity to identify the problem and then design and apply the solution to the problem, as opposed to a government-driven solution. In fact, all projects appeared as new inventions and actions and they were designed by individuals willing to help their communities and beyond. They intended to identify individuals left behind due to the pandemic outbreak, but still in need of support and care, in order to directly provide aid. The projects supported by the UNDP in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, Ezgu Amal CSO and IFMSA in Uzbekistan, the Peshraft CSO in Tajikistan and the assistance of Kyrgyz and Kazakh volunteers were directed towards people to

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  171

save their lives. As Kamila Narkulova from IFMSA said: “we helped people because the traditional healthcare system was not able to take care of everyone”.31 5.2.3 Networking and collaboration: active roles of diasporas abroad, CSOs and governments Networking and collaboration, per social practice theory, imply the constellation and collaboration of different actors for the generation and progress of projects. This criterion has been completely met in all selected cases. Recent research findings32 from Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan have revealed that government support of SIPs was either unstable or completely lacking. In the case of the pandemic outbreak, however, governments (including ­embassies) were keen on cooperation with CSOs and diasporas of Central Asians living abroad. This has been a clear sign of the changing political and social landscape implying the rise of political and social awareness of the ­implemented projects. For instance, one of the founders of the Tajik NGO Peshraft, ­Zuhursho Rahmatulloev, mentioned, alongside the director of this organization, ­Matlyuba Salihova, said that they “contacted [the] Tajik diaspora in Russia, Europe, the US, Japan etc.” to raise funds for people in Tajikistan,33 in order to purchase masks, medication and food. The same was true in the case of the Uzbek Solidarity with Uzbekistan campaign organized by Uzbeks living abroad. One of the organizers, Kamola Makhmudova, says: The idea of raising money was offered by the London-based Uzbek NGO Bilim (Uzbek for “knowledge”). I have helped to shuff le it into a good and transparent fundraising campaign. Since I did not like the idea of just asking for funds, I decided that we can offer something to exchange it for money. This is how we decided to teach Uzbek dance, talk about the history of Uzbekistan and its culture. We managed to invite Marinika Babanazarova, former director of Savitskiy Museum in Karakalpakstan, to talk about this museum. We could also arrange for Uzbek dance classes online. Honestly, I was pleased to note that people, sometimes non-Uzbeks, were not just donating, but also willing to learn Uzbek dance, culture and history. We even have several funny stories of people donating just not to dance. Now, we have collected even more money than I was expecting.34 Zaynab Muhammad-Dost, a volunteer campaign supporter, said “funds ­gathered allowed [us] to apply for an additional matching of the sum by EBRD—the bank supports its staff ’s involvement in certain community ­initiatives”.35 Kamola Makhmudova, who is working for the EBRD in ­London, clarified that “the money raised was approved by the EBRD’s special shareholders fund in amount 50.000 Euros for charity work on EBRD

172  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

employees”.36 In this case, the money had to be spent for a social project led or co-organized by an EBRD employee. After a very careful check, as ­K amola Makhmudova mentioned, the Ezgu Amal NGO in Tashkent was selected as a recipient of the collected money, in order to purchase health equipment, masks and food for people in Uzbekistan. This organization was picked up due to the excellent record and transparency it practices.37 Rahmatulloev and Salikhova from Tajikistan and Makhmudova and ­Muhammad-Dost from Uzbekistan have mentioned the assistance and support they have received from the governments. Salikhova mentioned that “she was surprised how fast the local government of Dushanbe provided the list of Tajiks living below the poverty line in the city”,38 Muhammad-Dost highlighted that the “Uzbek Embassy was supporting the initiative”,39 and Makhmudova added that the “Uzbek Embassy in London offered plenty of options of individuals and organizations they can contact in Uzbekistan with a request to participate in the solidarity campaign, later issuing individual letters of gratitude to every participant”.40 Thus, social cohesion and mobilization of social capital and networking among the diasporas, local NGOs and the government have contributed to the meeting of the networking criterion of social innovation. In Georgia, the COVIDer application was a remarkable example of how tech people, academics and CSOs are able to come together and create something absolutely needed for the society. In Azerbaijan SIPs (e.g., with the Ministry of Health)41 were designed with the prospect of future national ownership and a possibility to scale them up, while in Moldova SIPs42 were implemented directly by MiLab. 5.2.4 Sector neutrality and focus on specific domains: cross-sectoral projects driven by CSOs and volunteers This social innovation criterion was also met. The projects were designed in a cross-sectoral manner – an important accomplishment during the ­pandemic. Post-Soviet governments usually try to maintain tight control over the civic sector, even taking over its functions. This has also partly happened in U ­ zbekistan where the Uzbek government asked volunteers to join the governmental Sahovat va ko’mak (Generosity and Support)43 centralized movement to help people in need through the mahallas (local communities). However, as Munira Khodjakhanova from Ezgu Amal says: “CSOs and informal groups were allowed to continue helping”.44 Moreover, CSOs and volunteers were the drivers of the projects. In other words, people have united to help their compatriots left in difficult situations due to the coronavirus. Governments that were usually cautious about civic activism did not challenge it this time. In contrast, they collaborated with

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  173

CSOs in raising funds, providing administrative support, or allowing speedy access to data about poor households. For instance, Munira K ­ hodjakhanova says that their CSO activist Aziza Umarova “managed to reach out to the Cabinet of Ministers to speedily obtain a permission to import oxygen accelerators as a humanitarian aid, thereby avoiding taxation”.45 Matlyuba Salikhova mentioned: The hukumat [local administration] of Dushanbe was willing to rapidly provide to Peshraft the list of households living below the poverty line. Usually, it takes longer time to get this data. It is not publicly accessible because of privacy of the information about the poor families. Thus, the fact that government allowed Peshraft to access this information, tells much about the high level of credibility to what we do in Tajikistan.46 These examples of synergy and collaboration are key elements of change. They show that governments can ally with CSOs and citizens for the sake of public good. Ultimately, if the lesson is learned, those experiences might lead to changing political and social frameworks in Central Asia in terms of favoring innovations.47 In Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, as well as in Central Asian countries, SIPs were focused on the healthcare and the social sector to digitalize those public services48 in order to use the data and not to allow the infection to spread. SIPs have been generated at the crossroads of technological, civic and academic sectors. In Georgia and Azerbaijan, those projects were supported by the local and national governments49 willing to diffuse the prototypes. 5.2.5  Use of technologies Research discovered that the projects have aimed at greater inclusion and more participation and responsiveness through the extensive use of ICTs as well as social networks and platforms. Thus, this criterion has been met. In fact, it has not always been a required condition to have an ICT element in every social innovation project in times of COVID-19. For instance, in ­Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, some projects designed by IMSA and Peshraft did not have ICT components, though they did help people in need. At the same time, creating simple Chat bots like the one in Uzbekistan by CSO ‘Nihol’ or in Georgia, Azerbaijan or Moldova by local doctors and tech experts, have helped to prevent the spread of infection and assisted in the delivery of mental care support and medical services related to the protection from COVID-19not to mention that distance services became the standard during lockdowns in the countries which made ICTs the only available option for any activity including SIPs to support people in need. In fact, COVID-19 has contributed to moving forward systemic solutions in digital public service delivery such as in the case of Moldova50 or the installation of e-platform for healthcare workers in Azerbaijan.51 In other

174  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

words, the healthcare crisis has become an – impetus for the digital transformation that otherwise might have taken years. 5.2.6 Satisfaction of needs: attempts to address the needs not tackled by the government With respect to addressing particular social problems and people’s social needs, selected projects also met this criterion. The problems that the projects intended to tackle in the areas of healthcare and social services were not addressed fully by governments despite the growing demand for such services. Once the virus f lared up again, it became clear that additional help was needed. In this context, projects were tackling a number of issues, such as the provision of accurate and timely information about the symptoms and treatment of COVID-19. This essential support by professional physicians was enabled through Telegram chats and TV programs. Self-treatment and treatment by the doctor at home were not allowed. However, a huge demand for fact-checked and accurate information shared by professionals helped to mitigate undesirable panic and incorrect treatment. Though home treatment was prohibited in Uzbekistan, delivering and ­installing oxygen accelerators was possible, and, in fact, it saved the lives of those experiencing breathing problems due to pneumonia. In Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, CSOs and volunteers have launched the campaigns Breathe Uzbekistan and Breathe Kyrgyzstan. As Kamila Narkulova from IFMSA and Munira Khodjakhanova from Ezgu Amal pointed out: “in Uzbekistan this campaign was supported by CSOs Ezgu Amal and IFMSA”.52 Volunteers of the projects delivered food and medication to elderly ­people, people with disabilities and those who lost income. Governments also ­arranged assistance for the poor and disabled people. However, existing government resources were not sufficient, and the helping hand of volunteers was always welcome. For instance, the director of Peshraft, Matlyuba ­Salikhova recalls: I received a call from the deputy chairperson of Gorno-Badakhshan ­Autonomous Region (GBAO) with a request of support of the poor ­families (and/or families with a family member with disability) that lost their jobs, because the administration of GBAO heard about Peshraft’s activities in Tajikistan. We have also contacted hospitals to provide ­individual protection means (masks, overalls, respirators, glasses, shoe covers, gloves).53 However, this help was not enough, or data inaccuracies sometimes prevented projects and their leaders from helping those in real need; nevertheless, these projects contributed to greater health and social care coverage.

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  175

In Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, social innovation projects also emerged as a response to COVID-19. Obviously, their aim was to address the existing needs in the healthcare and social sectors. For instance, as Nargiz Gulieva from the UNDP Azerbaijan says: Covid-19 pushed innovations in the healthcare system. In fact, crisis is a driver for innovations. We worked over 6–7 initiatives that we have prototyped together with the Ministry of Health. The government wanted us to completely build this system. We are working on the small-scale prototypes. Without Covid-19, I doubt the interest to these would have been high.54 The same is equally true for Moldova, where MiLab introduced data-driven solutions to effectively respond to COVID-19.55 5.2.7  Scaling up: plans to diffuse the projects According to social practice theory, any invention should be repeated, or, in other words, diffused or scaled to achieve, over time, a sustainable social change. At the moment, the outreach of the aforementioned selected projects is uneven throughout the region. For instance, IFMSA and Ezgu Amal, as their leaders say: “are mostly operating in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan”.56 In the case of Tajikistan, Zuhursho Rahmatulloev shared that “their team plans to open a Peshraft daughter organization in Uzbekistan”.57 However, these are still plans on paper, and, at the moment, this criterion of social innovation has not been met. In Azerbaijan, the UNDP supported the COVID-19-focused social innovation project: “on the prototyping stage with the aim to hand it over to the Ministry of Health for the further diffusion across the country”.58 In Georgia, the projects were generated at the local governance level in the city of Rustavi. In both countries, it is yet premature to judge about scaling up of the solutions. 5.2.8 Social change: the assessment problem or different understanding of social impact Any social innovation is expected to make a social impact. In Central Asia, projects have been launched quite recently, and, therefore, it is premature to evaluate their social impact, it can only be estimated. Moreover, to establish whether any project had a social impact, adequate measurement tools should be applied, while those were either not available or not applied. In fact, as Kamila Narkulova said, “it was not a primary goal of the projects”.59 The same was true for the Kazakhstan projects Kazakhstan Never Sleeps and Aksakal (Kazakh for ‘elderly’), as well as the Telegram channel for physicians. All

176  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries

projects are being implemented by citizens voluntarily, and as one of the inspirers of these initiatives, Arman Satimov, says: “we have metrics of the help physicians provided to people through Telegram. This is all we have so far. We have projects changing peoples’ […] minds about COVID-19. Important project, but it is hard to measure its impact”.60 Interestingly enough, the projects had to do with the identification of ­social challenges and the establishment of new social relationships to tackle these challenges. For instance, Kamola Makhmudova said: The campaign Solidarity with Uzbekistan helped to establish relationships that otherwise would not have been established. The impact from the project was in helping people sitting at home to cope with psychological issues, by taking Uzbek dance, culture and history classes online, and to contribute financially to help people in Uzbekistan.61 In the case of social innovation projects supported by the UNDP in ­A zerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, the assessment of social impact was not a priority, but rather, as Nargiz Gulieva puts it, “a desirable option”.62 As the UNDP employees have recognized, measuring social impact is not an easy task and donors twisted across the need to measure the impact their project makes, and the understanding that social innovations are about prototypes that might never be scaled up to make a change. Thus, during COVID-19, assessing the social change has been as problematic as it has been early.

Notes 1 B. Buchegger and M. Ornetzeder. (2000). Social innovations on the way to ­sustainable development. ESEE Conference (pp. 1–11). Vienna: Zentrum für ­soziale Innovation, 2. 2 E. Asadova. (2013). What does social innovation mean for the developing and developed countries? Tashkent: Westminster International University in Tashkent, 54. 3 E. Asadova. (2013). What does social innovation mean for the developing and developed countries? Tashkent: Westminster International University in Tashkent, 55. 4 Interview, Azaliya Daiirbekova. March 2021. 5 Interview, Kaisha Atakhanova. March 2021. 6 Interview, Elena Kudinova. February 2021. 7 Interview, Talgat Bakushev, Janerke Egeubaeva. April 2021. 8 Interview, Rinad Temirbekov, Dinara Nurusheva, Assel Murat. March 2021. 9 Interview, Leyla Seyidzade. Via zoom. May 2021. 10 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 11 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 12 See http://kolba.am/projects/covid-19-response/. 13 See http://kolba.am/covid-19-response/. 14 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 15 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 16 See https://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/ 2020/boost-platform-launch.html. 17 See https://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/presscenter/articles/ 2020/hackcorona-in-ukraine-national-contest-of-it-solutions.html.

COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries  177 18 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 19 See https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13622post-covid-19-challenges-and-opportunities-for-central-asia.html. 20 See https://ifmsa.org/national-member-organizations. 21 Kamila Narkulova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 22 See https://t.me/knscovid19. 23 See https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/volunteers-to-the-rescue-as-virus-ragesin-kyrgyzstan/. 24 See https://www.peshraft.charity/our-team?lang=en. 25 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 26 Interview, Dmitri Belan. Via Messenger. April 2021. 27 Interview, Khatuna Sandroshvilli. Via zoom. February 2021. 28 See https://t.me/knscovid19. 29 Kamila Narkulova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 30 See https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/volunteers-to-the-rescue-as-virus-ragesin-kyrgyzstan/. 31 Kamila Narkulova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 32 See http://japan.tsukuba.ac.jp/research/JIAJS_ONLINE01_Radjabov.pdf. 33 Zuhursho Rahmatulloev and Matlyuba Salikhova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 34 Kamola Makhmudova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 35 Zaynab Muhammad-Dost, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 36 Kamola Makhmudova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 37 Kamola Makhmudova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 38 Matlyuba Salikhova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 39 Zaynab Muhammad-Dost, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 40 Kamola Makhmudova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 41 See https://www.az.undp.org/content/azerbaijan/en/home/presscenter/ pressreleases/2018/UNDP-AZE-Self-Checker-Bot-launched.html. 42 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/library/effective_ governance/public-services-in-moldova-in-covid-19-era.html. 43 See https://zamin.uz/uz/jamiyat/72593-sahovat-va-komak-xalqimizning-azaliy-­ qadriyati.html. 44 Munira Khodjakhanova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 45 Munira Khodjakhanova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 46 Matlyuba Salikhova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 47 G. Krlev, E. Bund, and G. Mildenberger. (2014). Measuring What Matters: ­Indicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level, 204. 48 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/library/effective_ governance/public-services-in-moldova-in-covid-19-era.html. 49 See https://www.az.undp.org/content/azerbaijan/en/home/presscenter/ pressreleases/2018/UNDP-AZE-Self-Checker-Bot-launched.html. 50 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/library/effective_ governance/public-services-in-moldova-in-covid-19-era.html. 51 See https://www.az.undp.org/content/azerbaijan/en/home/presscenter/­ pressreleases/2018/UNDP-AZE-Ministry-of-Health-and-UNDP-launch-elearning-platform-for-healthcare-professionals-in-Azerbaijan.html. 52 Kamila Narkulova and Munira Khodjakhanova, personal interview with the ­author, August 2020. 53 Matlyuba Salikhova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 54 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 55 See https://www.md.undp.org/content/moldova/en/home/library/effective_ governance/public-services-in-moldova-in-covid-19-era.html.

178  COVID-19 and SIPs in post-Soviet countries 56 Kamila Narkulova and Munira Khodjakhanova, personal interview with the ­author, August 2020. 57 Zuhursho Rahmatulloev, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 58 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021. 59 Kamila Narkulova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 60 Arman Satimov, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 61 Kamola Makhmudova, personal interview with the author, August 2020. 62 Interview, Nargiz Gulieva. Via zoom. May 2021.

6 Analysis and conclusion on ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries Findings and perspectives

6.1 Findings and perspectives of ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries Based on the research conducted for this book it is evident that some of the ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries are moving towards ­becoming workable social innovations. It has also become evident that by adapting their development assistance in post-Soviet countries to the local context, the donor organizations could be delivering their development ­assistance by using a new approach, through ‘social innovation’ projects in governance, social services, social entrepreneurship, healthcare, activism and volunteerism. The issue is, however, that it has been hitherto premature to gauge the diffusion and social change brought about by ‘social innovation’ projects (SIPs). Clearly, to bring about a social change more time and, as Howaldt et al. (2014) suggested, “socialization of social practice” (p. 14) would be required for the new social practice to transform existing social structures. While social innovations are mostly politically constructed and focus on a specific domain, they have not been always human-centered and user-driven. International donors have tried to but were not always successful in developing human-centered SIPs. They tend to equip local CSOs with new ‘social innovative’ tools to allow them to develop new projects addressing existing social challenges. This, however, has not always worked well. Social practice theory applied to the study to provide a scholarly assessment of SIPs allowed analyzing them in nine post-Soviet countries. It helped to explain how invention through imitation, translated into a social structure, might lead to social change by introducing new social practices. It proved that in post-Soviet settings this scenario is not only possible but is actually unfolding with certain limitations. Country-based assessment of SIPs against social innovation features ­outlined in the analytical chapters of this book allows for a discussion of country-specific findings, recommendations and perspectives of ‘social ­innovation’ projects.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003165804-7

180  Analysis and conclusion

In Central Asia, ‘social innovation’ projects have affected individuals and communities (microlevel impact). In terms of development and implementation, they have largely met the criteria of social innovation on newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness and inclusiveness, as well as the use of technology and addressing the needs. Since the projects experienced a lack of government support and only occasional opportunities to cooperate with local organizations, they could not be further scaled. Also, measuring projects’ social implications that enable social change was not possible due to the lack of adequate ‘social innovations’ measurement tools. Were these problems solved, ‘social innovation’ projects in Central Asia could, over time, potentially lead to the measurement of social change in the existing social structures. Subsequently, this would allow to predict whether a social change is going to happen. In Kazakhstan, ‘social innovation’ projects were supported by the ­government, an international donor (UNICEF) and civil society organizations (CSOs). For instance, Social Innovation Lab was launched in 2019 by the government-affiliated Astana Hub in collaboration with UNICEF to solve children’s social problems. Earlier, in 2015–2016, Partnership for Innovations (P4I) Program of the Civil Society Development Association (ARGO) and Eurasian Foundation of Central Asia had started supporting social innovations in the civic sector, which was subsequently funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia (now USAID Social Innovation in Central Asia). These are just examples of ‘social innovation’ projects supported by the government and CSOs. Kazakhstan-based ‘social innovation’ projects, as in the case of Uzbekistan, have been largely meeting the criteria of social innovations on newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness and inclusiveness, as well as the use of technology and addressing the needs. Of note is the weak linkage between the government and CSOs, as well as poor coordination of social innovation-related activities across CSOs. Table 6.1 shows the approach of Kazakhstan organizations to SIPs ­supported by them in this post-Soviet country. The table indicates how SIPs have been regarded based on social innovation criteria. In Kyrgyzstan, SIPs have been launched recently, after establishing a Social Innovation Lab Kyrgyzstan (SILK) within the American University of Central Asia (AUCA). SILK seeks to implement socially significant projects in Kyrgyzstan and generate solutions to the existing social problems. SILK employs a purely research and civic approach and its activists randomly collaborate with the local government. The Lab has recently raised funds from donors to launch some ‘social innovation’ projects. Therefore, more time is needed to assess their work. Table 6.2 shows SILK’s understanding of ‘social innovations’ in Kyrgyzstan. In Tajikistan, ‘social innovation’ projects have been launched in 2017 through the Media and Social Innovation Lab held in Dushanbe. The Lab was organized in the framework of ARGO’s “Partnership for Innovations – P4I”

Analysis and conclusion  181 Table 6.1  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kazakhstan against social innovations criteria

Astana Hub and UNICEF Social Innovation Lab

Partnership for Innovations (P4I)/Civil Society Development Association ARGO

USAID Civil Society Support Program in Central Asia

Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration

Yes Yes

In a certain social context

Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality

Yes Yes Yes

Use of technologies (ICTs)

Yes

Making social impact OR addressing needs

Yes

Scaling up Social change Newness

Yes Yes Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration

Yes Yes

Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs)

Not necessarily

Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Could be both

Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Might be partly new It is multisectoral and even multigenerational It can be a blended approach It depends. It is not always applicable In a certain social context Government support is required Can be both Especially in case of AstanaHub

Yes Yes (Continued)

182  Analysis and conclusion

Eurasian Foundation of Central Asia

Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Yes Yes Yes

Comments In a certain social context Both work well

Not necessarily Yes Yes Not necessarily

Social change cannot be always accessed. Even if social innovation fails, it is a lesson learned

Source: Table compiled by the author

Table 6.2  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Kyrgyzstan against social innovations criteria Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Social Innovation Lab Kyrgyzstan (SILK)

Newness

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Not necessarily Social innovations should not be always new People-centeredness Yes In order for the idea to get accepted by people, it should be articulated by people Networking and Yes Clearly, without political collaboration will, all our plans will be only a nice piece of paper Localness and focus on Yes Multi-sectoral approach specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies Not necessarily It can be a blended (ICTs) approach Making social impact Yes Social impact is not OR addressing needs always measurable Scaling up Yes Social change Yes

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Analysis and conclusion  183

program and Internews’ “Access to Information” program, with the support of the USAID and Innovation for Change. The Lab has a regional scope and includes representatives of media, CSOs and IT specialists from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The Lab has a clear focus on strengthening collaboration among the civil society, IT experts and media. Organizers have not applied social innovation criteria to estimate the impact of the projects developed by the Lab. Timewise, it is also premature to evaluate the Media and Social Innovation Lab’s initiatives since they were launched too recently to bring about any social change. Table 6.3 demonstrates which social innovation criteria ‘social innovation’ projects should correspond to, according to Internews in Tajikistan. The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project, according to the evaluation undertaken for this book, proved to be effective in generating small-scale SIPs. The analysis also revealed a strong inf luence of the factor due to the lack of government support in reinforcing the risk of SIPs not being scaled. Occasional collaboration with local organizations has largely not been helpful in the process of SIPs’ diffusion and achieving sustainability beyond UNDP’s funding. The same is true for the projects supported by the ‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide Movement and the ARGO. While aiming at micro-level issues, the projects have greater government support than what UNDP/United Nations Volunteers (UNV) Project had during 2012–2014. However, this is not enough for the diffusion of these projects to the scale bringing about social change over time. Moreover, though being designed to address social needs, these projects were also lacking instruments to gauge the impact they intended to make. Table 6.4 shows the criteria and characteristics ‘social innovation’ projects should correspond to in accordance with the UNDP, ‘Yuksalish’ and P4I vision in Uzbekistan. Table 6.3  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Tajikistan against social innovations criteria

Internews

Project/ Social innovation criteria organization Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Yes/No/Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Comments

184  Analysis and conclusion Table 6.4  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan against social innovations criteria

UNDP/UNV “Social innovations and volunteerism” Project

‘Yuksalish’ Nationwide movement, Partnership For Innovations (P4I) project

Project/ organization

Social innovation criteria

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration

Yes Yes

In a certain social context

Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs)

Yes

Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

A bridge between civic and government sectors Sector-based projects

Not necessarily It can be a blended approach Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

In a certain social context

Cross-cutting several sectors

Not necessarily Yes Difficult to measure social impact Yes Not always possible Yes Has not been identified

Source: Table compiled by the author.

It is advisable that possible future projects or programs employing social innovation methodology engage in more advocacy and education about the social innovation concept. This could be helpful for explaining the benefits of ‘social innovations’ to the governments (both national and local), ensuring better chances for such projects to be diffused and become institutionalized. Additionally, instruments to measure social impact from SIPs should be available, otherwise their effectiveness in bringing about proven social change over time will remain problematic. In the Caucasus, SIPs have operated on the local governance level and engaged with individuals and governments. Whilst being generated and implemented, they have mainly met the criteria of social innovation on ­newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness and inclusiveness, as well as the

Analysis and conclusion  185

use of technology and addressing the needs. Scaling ‘social ­innovation’ projects was relatively problematic due to the lack of stable government support of the projects. However, due to the active role of CSOs and civic activists, some projects (e.g., ARVest arts education board game, Taghinfo, Consumers’ Rights Protection Chat bot, projects in Rustavi, coronavirus self-checker bot) give hopeful signs of possible diffusion and institutionalization. UNDP Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan has launched 12 SIPs in 2020. Many of them were aimed at helping people and supporting them during the global COVID-19 outbreak. Accelerator Lab partnered with the ­Government of Azerbaijan, in particular with the Ministry of Health to support projects on online education of healthcare workers and the launch of a Video D ­ octor application (piloted in Baku, Azerbaijan). Besides the UNDP Accelerator Lab, the State Agency on Public Service and Social Innovations under the ­President of Azerbaijan established the Azerbaijani Service and Assessment Network (ASAN) Services Center focused largely on providing ­e-governance service. In Azerbaijan, a stronger role of the government in ‘social innovation’ projects is evident. It does make projects more sustainable but largely leaves CSOs out. In cases when CSOs partnered with the government, more human-centric and inclusive SIPs were generated. Table 6.5 shows how ‘social innovation’ projects in Azerbaijan have been developed in accordance with the social innovation criteria. To measure the social impact of SIPs, measurement tools were used inconsistently, preventing further evidence-based judgment about social ­ change. At the moment, gauging social change brought about by SIPs in the Table 6.5  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Azerbaijan against social innovations criteria

UNDP Accelerator Lab

Project/ organization

Social innovation criteria

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up

Yes Yes

In a certain social context

Social change

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Yes Not necessarily Yes

Where this is required Could be both There is no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer

Not necessarily Certain market needs should be met. This is enough Yes

186  Analysis and conclusion

local context is, in fact, premature, because the projects have been launched too recently and have not had enough time to fully evolve. Kolba Lab has been able to support individuals and governments (both national and local) in the generation of local SIPs. The inf luence of occasional government support on SIPs development was moderate due to the greater role of CSOs and civic activists, who helped to make the projects more sustainable. The areas for further improvement for Kolba Lab’s activities in supporting ‘social innovation’ projects are: (a) consistent application of the measurement instruments to measure social impact, and (b) raising awareness of the social innovation concept, educating on its key features and methodology of application. This would certainly improve the process of ‘social innovation’ projects development. At the same time, though some external factors such as government support are outside of Kolba Lab’s control, it can however advocate for social innovation and its benefits for the governance. Table 6.6 demonstrates how organizations in Armenia handled SIPs ­according to the social innovations criteria. Table 6.6  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Armenia against social innovations criteria

Kolba Lab

Mardamej Social Innovation Camp

Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness

Yes Yes

In a certain social context

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Yes Not necessarily Yes

Where this is required Could be both There is no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer

Not necessarily Yes Yes In a certain social context Yes Not necessarily Occasional government support Yes Localness Yes Yes

Establishing new social relationships Yes Occasional Not necessarily It was not possible to reach this stage

Analysis and conclusion  187

Service Lab supported by the UNDP and the Ministry of Justice in ­Georgia is another example of successful cooperation between an international donor and the government which has enabled SIPs in local governance and the public sector. Also, the projects undertaken jointly by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts, academics and medical doctors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have been an outstanding case of collaboration between academics and tech people. Although the need for SIPs was evident, projects supported by the Service Lab in Georgia were lacking instruments to measure their impact. Table 6.7 focuses on the mode SIPs corresponded to the social innovation criteria in the activities of the Service Lab. Overall, Kolba and Service Labs, as well as the UNDP Accelerator Lab in Azerbaijan, have accumulated experience of cooperation with local ­ ational governments, which demonstrates that advocating for social and n ­innovation in governance and promotion of its benefits have proved to be effective. Once local and national governments had realized that SIPs might be beneficial for them (e.g., could help to improve business processes in ­local government), they started supporting them. Thus, this strategy should be  ­adhered to in order to also decrease the risk of SIPs not being further scaled. Table 6.7  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Georgia against social innovations criteria

Sevice Lab

Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Not necessarily

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up

Yes Yes

Sometimes you can think of reviving something which is forgotten

Social change

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Yes Not necessarily

Could be both There is no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer

Yes Not necessarily

Yes

Sometimes very small initiative which makes a huge difference does not need to be system-wide.

188  Analysis and conclusion

In Ukraine and Moldova, SIPs have primarily enabled small-scale changes (microlevel impact) affecting individuals and local governments. While being generated and implemented, they (exactly like those undertaken in Central Asian and Caucasian countries) have largely met the criteria of social innovation on newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness and inclusiveness, as well as the use of technology. Some of these projects may advance to meso level by changing existing and introducing new practices. Scaling up ‘social innovation’ projects was problematic due to the lack of continuous government support of the projects. However, the active role of CSOs may secure the diffusion of some SIPs (e.g., on participatory budgeting, or using open data in local governments). If the shortcomings relating to the lack of social impact measurement tools are properly addressed, SIPs in Ukraine and Moldova might potentially lead to verifiable social change in the e­ xisting ­social structures. Yet, it is too early and therefore difficult to make a ­conclusive judgment on social change. Tables 6.8 and 6.9 portray how SIPs were treated in Ukraine and Moldova against social innovations standards, respectively. SocialBoost in Ukraine and MiLab in Moldova proved to be effective in generating small-scale SIPs with some possibility to be further diffused throughout the social system. Findings revealed the need to develop and

Table 6.8  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Ukraine against social innovations criteria

Eidos

ADV, EU4Youth – Social Innovation Impact – a strategic partnership

Country/ Social innovation criteria Project/ organization Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Checkmark

Yes Yes Yes Yes Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes

Comments

TAPAS

SocialBoost

Analysis and conclusion  189 Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Yes Yes Yes Yes Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Table 6.9  ‘Social innovation’ projects in Moldova against social innovations criteria

ADV, Cross-Border Partnership for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship

UNDP MiLab

Country/Project/ Social innovation criteria organization

Yes/No/Not necessarily

Comments

Newness

Yes

People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs)

Yes Yes Yes

In a certain social context

Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change Newness People-centeredness Networking and collaboration Localness and focus on specific domain OR sector neutrality Use of technologies (ICTs) Making social impact OR addressing needs Scaling up Social change

Yes

Source: Table compiled by the author.

Not necessarily

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not necessarily Yes Yes Yes

Cross-cutting public and social sectors It can be a blended approach

190  Analysis and conclusion

apply social impact measurement tools to be able to measure the possible impact of SIPs. The areas for further improvement are: (a) education on ­social ­innovation to increase the knowledge about its key features and methodology. This should improve the still relatively problematic area of social i­nnovation ­concept understanding, and ‘social innovation’ projects implementation in the local context; (b) greater advocacy of social innovation in the public ­sector could be useful to make the government support more consistent. This will most likely decrease the risk of SIPs not being diffused.

6.2 Evolution of the social innovation concept, summary of the findings of ‘social innovation’ projects evaluation and their particular features in the postSoviet context In post-Soviet countries, strong government presence in all sectors of the society is traditional and rooted in the Soviet type of governance. Therefore, for any international development donors operating in these countries, it was necessary to cooperate with the government in order to proceed with the organization’s development work. The international organizations in post-Soviet countries have been offering their development assistance to the governance sector, which proved to be a sensitive area for all post-Soviet governments. Concepts of ‘good’ or ‘democratic’ governance, as promoted by Western development agencies, have been regarded as too politicized. To be able to collaborate with post-Soviet governments, donors have d­ eliberately developed a concept of ‘social innovations’, assuming that ‘social innovations’ projects would be regarded as less politicized and more as a type of technical support for the local communities and governments. Thus, donors e­ xperimented with the social innovation concept and ­supported umbrella o ­ rganizations, namely the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and V ­ olunteerism in U ­ zbekistan’ ­Project, SocialBoost and Kolba Lab, Service Lab, Social ­Innovation Lab Kazakhstan, P4I and local SIPs under these organizations. Based on the experiences of the donors-driven SIPs, the concept of social innovation evolved in post-Soviet countries. First of all, ‘social innovation’ projects have been viewed by international donors as something that can be worked towards, i.e., volitional. This was also one of the distinctive characteristics of SIPs in post-Soviet countries as opposed to social innovations in other countries where the social innovation concept was applied by scholars to completed projects. Thus in post-Soviet countries, all eight usual s­ocial innovation criteria are considered volitional: while social innovations in ­developed countries to be considered as such should achieve all eight goals, in ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries these goals remain volitional. In this regard, it has been established that SIPs have mainly met six common criteria of social innovations on newness, human-centeredness, networking, localness, use of ICTs and making a social impact. These criteria

Analysis and conclusion  191

drawn from the theory and relevant scholarly literature have been restated below, discussing their peculiarities in the context of post-Soviet countries. Criteria of social innovations largely met by ‘social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries: •

•

•

Newness of ‘social innovation’ projects ref lects the new ideas and actions they are supposed to bring into the social context of post-Soviet countries. All ‘social innovation’ projects in the post-Soviet settings, regardless of whether a government, CSO or international donors initiated them, have met this criterion. The newly designed projects were assumed to be new by default for the ecosystem existing in these countries. In post-­ Soviet countries, government organizations, donors and CSOs were not ambitious about the newness of ‘social innovation’ projects, acknowledging their contextual newness for the countries. People-centeredness and inclusiveness of social innovations mean that individuals experiencing certain problems come up with solutions to these problems. Social innovations should, then, strive for more inclusiveness of individuals and social groups, left behind by the previous policies and programs. In post-Soviet countries, people-centered and inclusive SIPs have proved to be a new effective approach to design donor-led development projects. The evidence from post-Soviet countries suggests that applying this principle enabled new types of projects to generate ideas from the grassroots level. These new projects, generally, allowed the participation of new actors, social groups and individuals that were previously neglected. Certainly, the human-centered feature also endorsed more engagement of government (public) servants (e.g., as in Armenia through local governance innovation contest, or the municipal innovation lab in Ukraine) in the development and implementation of SIPs in governance area. Networking and collaboration implies that social innovations were supposed to encourage networking and collaboration among different actors (government, international donors, CSOs, private companies, individuals) for the development and further progress of social innovations.

In practice, in post-Soviet countries, the government support of ‘social ­innovation’ projects was found to be unstable, scarce or even non-existent. This aspect contrasted with social innovations experiences in other developed, developing and even post-communist countries. The study found that governments in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, partly in ­A zerbaijan and Kazakhstan were mostly interested in supporting SIPs when/if they ­realized that the projects could be beneficial for them. Seeing the rationale behind any ‘social innovation’ project usually took some time, therefore many small-scale ‘social innovation’ projects were not immediately supported by the government.

192  Analysis and conclusion

Unstable government support in Ukraine and Armenia is sometimes, e­ xplained not by the lack of understanding of the value of SIPs for the governance, but by dramatic political changes in the countries. Elections that led to the change of governments (both locally and nationally) or any other reasons for the change of a decision-maker who committed himself/herself to institutionalize and/or scale a ‘social innovation’ project have inf luenced the overall success of these projects in Ukraine and Armenia. In Moldova and Georgia political developments were not directly affecting ‘social ­innovation’ projects. The UNDP in these countries could establish a strategic ­partnership with the government to support projects in the governance sector. In ­A zerbaijan, both the government and UNDP were supporting social innovations based on their priorities in the public sector. In Kazakhstan, there was occasional cooperation between UNICEF and Astana Hub supported by the government. But when SIPs were supported by the government, they could advance to the level of diffusion and institutionalization. In Ukraine, for instance, the UNDP managed to engage with the government through the municipal innovation lab. In Armenia, successful collaboration was established between Kolba Lab and the government through the local governance innovation contest, where Kolba Lab could nurture ‘policy entrepreneurs’ – individuals inside the governments (local and national), who could offer problem-solving innovative solutions in governance. In Georgia, Service Lab supported by the UNDP allied with the Ministry of Justice and the local government in Rustavi city. In Azerbaijan, the UNDP also joined efforts with the government (e.g., with the Ministry of Health) to ensure the national ownership of the projects. Moreover, donors and local CSOs were able, to some extent, to compensate for the unstable government support of SIPs by establishing cooperation between their leaders and civic activists. This allowed better scaling ­opportunities for SIPs. In Uzbekistan, the study discovered the lack of government support of SIPs in 2012–2014. Occasional cooperation between their leaders and local ­organizations was taking place instead. Also, the UNDP managed to sign MoUs with the National Library of Uzbekistan and the Center for Youth Initiatives in collaboration with the UNDP with a view of supporting SIPs. Later, in 2018, innovations became the priority for the new government and the new President of the Republic elected in 2016. In Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, governments were not involved in SIPs, they were operated by the CSOs and international donors. •

Localness and focus on specific domain deems that any social innovation is launched locally and aimed at a specific domain. In post-Soviet countries, all ‘social innovation’ projects were launched locally and were aimed at a specific domain. They were primarily aimed at local governance, social services, social entrepreneurship, health care,

Analysis and conclusion  193

•

activism, volunteerism matters in communities and governments. ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan have been supported by the UNDP/ UNV project locally, by providing seed funding, training and establishing cooperation with local organizations. Usually, launching and implementation of a ‘social innovation’ project without government’s permission or support was not possible. Thus, these projects were piloted locally with the intention to hand them over to local organizations that would ideally scale them up. In some post-Soviet countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, ­A rmenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan it was possible to launch and implement ‘­social ­innovation’ projects without government permission or support. H ­ owever, the project benefited more if the government (national and/or local) ­support was available. In other cases, cooperation with CSOs and civic activists helped SIPs to sustain. SocialBoost, MiLab, Kolba, Mardamej Social Innovation Camp, Service Lab, SILK have supported ‘social innovation’ projects by providing funding and/or training. They also served as pipelines for the projects, allowing their partnership with public, private and civic organizations. Numerous local initiatives like the M ­ unicipal innovation lab in Ukraine and the local governance i­ nnovation contest in Armenia also helped to nurture innovators and SIPs locally. Use of ICTs displays a particular technological (ICT) feature applied in designing and implementation of social innovations. At the same time, the application of this feature does not mean that low-tech social innovations are not possible. In fact, in all post-Soviet countries, respondents emphasized that social innovations could be low-tech, though digitalization of social innovation is, in general, a prevailing trend. In Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Armenia the majority of SIPs had a digital component. For instance, in Ukraine and Armenia SIPs mostly used ICTs and open data. The international and local legislation on the open data, and the government commitment to make the governance more ­transparent, as well as the active role of CSOs, allowed generating data-driven and ICTsdriven SIPs. In Armenia, Kolba Lab has supported ICTs and d­ ata-driven SIPs to ensure greater participation of citizens in g­ overnance. ­Combined with open data, ICTs allowed crowdsourcing ideas, m ­onitoring ­government’s funds and services. In this regard, digitalization of social innovation as a generally emerging trend is also present in post-Soviet countries. In contrast, in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, most of the SIPs were low-tech. This means that ICTs (and/or local engineering works in ­ the case of Uzbekistan) were used occasionally. One reason for this in ­Uzbekistan could be the low level of internet coverage. Another reason, that was indicated by the interviewees from the UNDP, is the intention to support SIPs in rural areas of Uzbekistan, where solutions do not ­require the use of ICTs. In Kyrgyzstan, though SIPs have been developed

194  Analysis and conclusion

•

in the capital city, Bishkek addresses issues like city planning and scientific research. Making a social impact suggests that social innovation should address ­particular social problems and social needs.

In post-Soviet countries measuring social impact from SIPs was mostly problematic. Out of nine post-Soviet countries, attempts to measure social impact from ‘social innovation’ projects have been made only in Armenia: Kolba Lab applied NESTA Standards of Evidence. Though the attempts were inconsistent, they, nevertheless, demonstrated the intention to apply qualitative and/ or quantitative tools to comprehend the social impact from SIPs, to possibly ­relate it to the change that any social innovation is ultimately aimed for. In fact, the major problem with post-Soviet SIPs was that they have been launched quite recently. Therefore, it was too early to gauge their social impact. This, combined with the lack of adequate instruments to measure social impact, has made its measuring in post-Soviet countries difficult. Moreover, while the reviewed scholarly literature regarded social impact from social innovations as the satisfaction of needs, in post-Soviet countries social impact from SIPs was sometimes understood differently. For instance, it was discovered that the UNDP in post-Soviet countries regarded social impact as the identification of the problem and the creation of social relationships to solve it. While six of the eight social innovation criteria have been mostly met, SIPs in post-Soviet countries are still progressing towards the last two. It is premature to assess whether SIPs in post-Soviet countries will meet the two remaining criteria of social innovation – scaling-up and social change – but some of them, particularly in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia, do show encouraging signs of eventually moving in the right direction. Criteria of social innovations that ‘SIPs in post-Soviet republics are still progressing towards: •

Scaling up implies that any social innovation should be scalable/diffusible across the social system. Scaling or diffusing SIPs was problematic in post-Soviet c­ountries. Diffusion and further institutionalization of projects could be, in ­general, successful if government support were available. However, as it was ­a lready recognized, in many countries such support was lacking. In Ukraine and Armenia, government support was occasional, while in ­K azakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova governments were ­engaging with SIPs. This caused challenges in the diffusion and institutionalization of projects. However, in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia, owing to the active role of CSOs and civil society activists, SIPs have had the signs of possible diffusion. For instance, in Ukraine, the project on participatory budgeting has been applied by the government in 63 municipalities, due to the efforts of the CSO’s pushing for

Analysis and conclusion  195

•

making the governance more participatory and budgeting more transparent. In Armenia, among the projects that could be successfully diffused are ARVest arts education board game that received the support of the government and CSOs and the Taghinfo project that was largely supported by civic activists. The UNDP, SocialBoost and Kolba Lab, Service Lab, MiLab have also injected ‘social innovation’ projects in governance, through municipal innovation lab (in Ukraine), and local governance innovation contest (in Armenia), support of the Rustavi local governance and MiLab-­supported e-governance initiatives. This gave some hope for the diffusion and institutionalization of ‘social innovation’ projects. For instance, in Ukraine, the Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk project generated by the municipal innovation lab has received the support of the local government. Though it is currently not the case, diffusion and institutionalization of the project could be possible if the government decides to spread this ­experience across the other municipalities. In Armenia, one of such projects is Consumers’ Rights Protection Chat bot, which has been generated ­ through the local governance innovation contest and aimed at nurturing ‘policy entrepreneurs’, received the government’s backing. It also has the potential to be scaled if the government’s support will be continuous. Social change as the process of change in the social structure of post-­ Soviet societies, including their constitutive institutions, cultural ­patterns, associated social actions and conscious awareness is not easy to determine. In fact, it takes a longer time and numerous complex s­ ocietal, legal and political arrangements for social change to happen and to shift the existing social reality. ‘Social innovation’ projects in post-Soviet countries have been launched recently and did not have sufficient time to enable a social change.

The study shows that social innovations in post-Soviet countries reached different levels of progress. For instance, in Central Asian countries social innovations have not always received government support, while initiators occasionally cooperated with local organizations. Therefore, they mostly ­affected individuals and only occasionally fostered institutional changes. In Georgia, Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine it was generally easier to drive ‘social innovation’ projects, build eco-system, use open data and generate it, apply foresight, etc. In other countries like Azerbaijan and/or Kazakhstan, governments either tried to lead and develop social innovations, or, as in other Central Asian countries, remained indifferent to social innovations. In Central Asia though, it was CSOs and international donors that initiated SIPs in the civic sector. However, those projects either (a) had local dimension and could not be diffused, or (b) CSOs did not have enough capacity to develop and lead them. Thus, in Georgia, Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine, and partly in ­A zerbaijan better scaling possibilities were available, due to the better g­overnment

196  Analysis and conclusion

s­upport and a more active civil society. Thus, social innovations in these countries demonstrate signs of moving towards social change, but it is yet premature to assess if they enable social change. Overall, in post-Soviet countries, the following challenges for the generation and implementation of social innovations were identified: (1) lack of funding for ‘social innovation’ projects; (2) despite the existing need, general absence of demand for social innovations in the public and private sector and in the society in general; (3) lack of information exchange and donor coordination among the donors implementing ‘social innovation’ projects, as well as the institutional memory and sufficient research; (4) Poor understanding of what ‘social innovation’ is, and general distrust in the change that ‘social innovation’ can bring about. SIPs supported and implemented by international donors (sometimes in collaboration with the government), CSOs and volunteers in the post-Soviet countries in response to the COVID-19 outbreak manifested the changes ongoing in local civil societies, despite the existing difficulties in NGO ­registration.1 It is clear that the societal and political environment – or as Krlev puts it, “frameworks”2 – are evolving and turning into a more f­ avorable ­ecosystem for social innovations. However, the projects are not yet qualified as true social innovations because: (1) more time and effort are needed to diffuse them; and (2) the projects must be institutionalized to enable social change. What is remarkable is how social networks and ICTs have impacted the spread of civic initiatives across the post-Soviet states. ICTs helped to organize communities of experts, primarily physicians and volunteers willing to help others. Moreover, the role of the government in pandemic times has also changed to become more engaged with civil society. Although in some cases the government still tried to replace CSOs, it nevertheless did not discourage volunteers and CSOs in their activities or their willingness to help people in need. Thus, changes prompted by the global pandemic might create more opportunities for social innovations in post-Soviet countries.

6.3  Developmental feature of ‘social innovation’ projects To recall, in post-Soviet countries the social innovation concept has evolved, primarily, as something volitional. This also made eight common features of social innovations volitional. Besides this, since SIPs were supported by the international development organizations (UNDP, USAID, UNICEF), and implemented for development purposes in post-Soviet developing countries (and/or countries in transition), they have acquired the developmental feature. Thus, aside from being volitional, the social innovation concept in post-Soviet countries now has also evolved into something developmental. It was found that differently from social innovations in developed ­countries, SIPs in the post-Soviet countries have been of a particular “developmental” type due to the role of international development organizations in supporting

Analysis and conclusion  197

them for development purposes. Specifically, they are d­ evelopmental because they have been designed to help local communities and governments in a developing or transition context to find solutions to existing social problems. They attempt to carry better economic and political opportunities, as well as social services, and improve the capabilities of ­individuals, as Sen (1999) suggests. International donors in their development work were also guided by Sen’s capability approach and human development theory that is beyond just ­income generation and economic growth. As Millard (2014) pointed out, “human development approach was a shift from the idea of satisfaction of basic needs of individuals, to the improvement of their capabilities, and more human-focused measure of development” (p. 42). In that sense, capability approach became a new pattern in development that lies at the core of h ­ uman development theory. Based on these theoretical accounts, human freedom, political liberty, civil and economic rights and improved social services ­became the main objectives and the means of development work of the international donors. With regard to human development theory, Millard (2014) also emphasized the novel understanding of governance as open, transparent, participative and empowering. This is how in practice the main objectives of human development, namely political, economic and civil rights, as well as social services could be guaranteed. Thus, in post-Soviet countries, international donor-supported SIPs were particularly striving for greater inclusion, participation and responsiveness through the extensive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). They were aimed at the improvement of local social facilities, ensuring transparency and empowering individuals. In post-Soviet countries, SIPs are intended to empower individuals and engage with them to solve their ­local developmental challenges. They helped to include people with disabilities, girls and young people neglected by previous development programs. ICTs and open data were used to a greater extent to generate SIPs that could ­ensure transparency and accountability of the governments. SIPs created more ­opportunities for citizens to monitor and comment on the quality of government services (e.g., quality of municipal roads, quality of services provided by the local government), to use additional economic opportunities (e.g., ­inclusive employment and social/medical service opportunities for people with disabilities) and to have better quality social services (e.g., electricity or water services in rural areas). This is precisely how SIPs in post-­ Soviet countries obtained their developmental feature and contributed to the evolvement of the social innovation concept into something developmental. Social innovation in development studies Critical analysis of the development theories that have examined social innovations, has demonstrated that those theories, namely, modernization theory, reverse innovation theory, theory of change, post-development theory and

198  Analysis and conclusion

human development theory have attempted to scrutinize and conceptualize social innovation in relevance to development. Simultaneously, in ­practice, the social innovation concept has started being applied by development ­organizations. For instance, Moreno (2017) has applied social innovation in the World Bank research aimed for analysis of implications of social innovations in the peace-building process in Colombia. Santha (2019) has researched the transition of social innovations and the future pathways to Sustainable Development Goals. The current study is dedicated to the research of SIPs in post-Soviet countries, where international development organizations (e.g., UNDP) for the first time introduced ‘social innovations’. Thus, social innovation is being introduced into the development work, and into the discipline of development studies dedicated to the multidisciplinary perspective on the issues of development, poverty reduction, inequality, as well as political, economic, environmental and cultural changes in the ­developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. However, though the social innovation concept is being introduced into development studies and development work, it has been yet insufficiently researched. Further studying social innovations in the development context might be a rewarding task that could contribute to the development studies as an academic discipline, and to the development work employing social innovations in different regions of the globe.

6.4 Danger of diluting the social innovation concept: intermixing with other terms Based on the findings of the research, local organizations and international donors have usually intermixed social innovation with other terms more ­familiar to them. The interchange of the social innovation concept with other terms allowed making the concept acceptable both for them and for the governments (national partners), and, subsequently, to deliver development assistance or a new project. In post-Soviet countries, ‘social innovation’ projects have had a volitional character, meaning that they have not fully gone through the process of social innovation generation. This entails that they have not yet met all eight criteria of social innovations. Organizations implementing SIPs usually did not have a clear definition of social innovation. They also have not explicitly applied the criteria of social innovation limiting ‘social innovation’ projects to a certain sector or problem. If the social innovation concept is interchanged with other terms, the UNDP, umbrella organizations, projects’ leaders and local partners will not follow up whether all criteria (especially scaling up and social change) of social innovation have been met, after the donor’s support and funding have discontinued. Thus, it will be challenging to detect whether SIPs have brought about true social innovation. This is the problem that the shift from “social innovation” to other terms causes for the concept in post-Soviet

Analysis and conclusion  199

countries. So, while being often interchanged or intermixed, in the course of implementation, with such other terms as ‘social projects’, ‘civic engagements’, ‘civic technology’ and others, the social innovation concept tends to be diminished. Thus, the term ‘social innovation’ should be either used accurately with consideration of social innovation criteria, or not used at all.

References Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical ­approaches to social innovation – a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: ‘Social innovation: driving force of social change’ (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: ­ Sozialforschungsstelle. Millard, J. (2014). Development theory and social innovation. In: Theoretical approaches to social innovation – a critical literature review (pp. 34–52). Heidelberg: Springer. Moreno, C. (2017). Republic of Colombia. Social innovation for peace building in Colombia. Learning from international experiences in peace process scenarios. Washington: World Bank. Santha, D. (2019). Critical transitions in social innovation and future pathways to sustainable development goals. The Indian context. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 80 (1), 9–30. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

Notes 1 See https://cabar.asia/en/why-is-it-difficult-to-open-an-ngo-in-uzbekistan/ 2 G. Krlev, E. Bund, and G. Mildenberger. (2014). Measuring What Matters: ­Indicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level, 204.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and page numbers followed by “n” refer to end notes. ARGO 3, 3, 5–7, 41, 52, 55, 60, 62, 64, 68, 86, 93, 166, 180–181, 183 Armenia 1, 3–5, 8, 13, 40, 46, 47n17–18, 100, 102–104, 108–118, 120–126, 129–131, 131n4, 131n16–18, 167, 171, 186, 191–195 Astana Hub 5–6, 40, 52–54, 61–62, 64, 68–69, 75, 77–78, 82, 93, 166, 180–181, 192 Azerbaijan 1, 3–5, 7–8, 40, 47n12–13, 98–99, 107–109, 111, 116–118, 121–126, 129–131, 131n12, 133n103, 167–168, 170, 172–173, 175–176, 177n49–52, 185, 187, 191–195 Caucasus 3, 7–8, 98–134, 166, 184 Central Asia 1, 3, 3, 4n1, 4n3, 5–6, 41, 47n3, 47n4, 51–94, 94n1, 94n9–97, 107, 166, 168–169, 171, 173, 175, 177n19, 180–182, 188, 195 civil society 3, 3, 4n3, 6–7, 13, 15, 19, 21–22, 29, 37, 39, 41, 48n37, 51–52, 54–56, 60, 67–68, 74–75, 86, 89, 94n1, 102, 114–115, 123, 125, 135, 147, 150, 160, 165, 169, 180–181, 183, 194, 196 COVID-19 2, 7–8, 11, 47, 79, 99, 99, 103, 108, 117, 126, 165–176, 176n12, 176n13, 177n19, 177n42, 177n48, 177n50, 177n55, 185, 187, 196 CSO 3–7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 29, 39, 47n3–4, 51–53, 54, 60, 64, 68–69, 74–75, 78, 80, 82, 84–85, 88–89, 93–94, 94n2, 94n9, 100, 111, 114–115, 122–123, 130, 135, 141–142, 144, 147–151, 153, 156, 165–174, 179–180, 183, 185–186, 188, 191–196

development 1, 3–4, 6–17, 20, 22–24, 26–27, 29, 35–36, 38, 40–41, 42–46, 47n21, 48n34, 48n43, 49n50, 49n60–2, 51–52, 53–54, 55–57, 60, 61, 64, 66–68, 79, 85–88, 91–92, 94, 97n141, 98, 99–100, 102, 104–105, 108, 110, 116, 118, 124–126, 129–130, 134, 141–142, 144–148, 153, 155, 157–158, 163n8, 163n16, 163n17, 166–167, 176n1, 179–181, 186, 189–192, 196–199; see also human development, international development domain 6, 9, 12, 20, 22–24, 39, 47n19, 74–76, 115–117, 150, 172, 179, 181–189, 192 donor 1, 5–6, 9, 11–12, 21, 42, 45–46, 63, 69, 75, 87, 91, 105, 127, 130, 135, 145, 165, 179–180, 187, 196; see also international donor, donor organization donor organization 5, 12, 42, 46, 63, 69, 75, 87, 127, 130, 145, 179 Eastern Europe 3, 9, 23, 28, 135–164, 166, 168 entrepreneurship 6, 9, 12, 15–16, 19, 47n21, 53, 57, 59, 62, 123, 126, 129–131, 141–142, 149, 159, 167, 179; see also social entrepreneurship Eurasia Foundation 6, 9, 51–52, 54, 62, 64–65, 69, 85–86, 88, 93, 98, 103–104, 108, 111, 135, 166–168 Georgia 1, 3–5, 8, 13, 40, 98, 104–107, 110, 115–119, 121–130, 167–168, 170, 172–173, 175–176, 187, 191–195

202 Index governance 5, 7–9, 12, 19, 24–25, 37, 39, 41–42, 44–46, 48n11, 54, 74, 76, 86–88, 98, 101, 103, 106, 112–114, 116–118, 121–122, 124–127, 130, 135–137, 147, 150–151, 156, 158, 160, 165, 175, 177n42, 177n48, 177n50, 177n55, 179, 184–187, 190–192 Howaldt, J. 10–1, 13–26, 29, 34, 35–38, 44, 72–3, 77, 95n40–42, 96n105, 97n139, 110, 112–114, 117, 120–121, 132n39, 134, 148–149, 151, 153–154, 156, 161, 162n4–5, 179, 199 human-centered 12, 15–16, 45, 57, 64–67, 100, 108–110, 126, 140, 143–146, 151, 156, 159, 161–162, 169–170, 179–180, 184, 188, 190–191 human development 1, 42–45, 85, 125, 157, 197–198 ICT 7–9, 12, 24–25, 27, 32, 35, 39, 42, 45, 53, 56, 58, 77–79, 93, 101, 117–118, 123, 125, 136–138, 151–153, 155, 157–158, 160–161, 169–170, 173, 181–190, 193, 196 international development 3, 11, 29, 45, 51, 54–55, 166, 180, 190, 196, 198 international donor 5–6, 9, 11–12, 21, 45, 51, 61, 68–69, 75, 84, 87–88, 93–94, 98, 105, 144, 165, 179–180, 187, 190–192, 195–197 Internews 3, 3, 5, 5–6, 41, 55–56, 62, 69, 78–79, 86, 93, 183 Kazakhstan 1, 3, 5–6, 40, 51–56, 61–64, 68–70, 75, 77, 80, 82, 85–89, 93, 166, 168–170, 175, 180–181, 183, 190–195 Kolba Lab 4, 8, 40, 46, 100–103, 109, 111–117, 119–126, 130–131n14, 132n38, 132n61, 133n90–93, 134n9, 167, 186, 190, 192–195 Kyrgyzstan 1, 3, 5–6, 41, 53–56, 62–63, 70, 77, 79–80, 87, 89, 168–170, 174, 177n23, 177n30, 180, 182–183, 192–193 localness 12, 22, 39, 74, 115–117, 150, 155, 180–192 Moldova 1, 3–5, 9–10, 40, 48n22–23, 135, 141–144, 146–147, 150–153, 155–159, 161–163, 163n16–17, 168, 170, 172–173, 175–177n42,

177n48, 177n52, 177n55, 188–189, 191–195 networking 6, 12, 17–19, 21–22, 38–39, 52, 68–72, 81, 111–113, 115, 122, 147–148, 150, 160, 169, 171–172, 180–191 post-Soviet 1–3, 5, 10–13, 38, 42, 44–46, 51, 68–69, 74, 88, 94, 98, 107–108, 118, 120, 123, 125, 130–131, 135, 155, 162, 165, 168–170, 172, 179–180, 190–198; see also post-Soviet countries post-Soviet countries 1–3, 5, 10–13, 38, 42, 44–46, 118, 123, 135, 165–179 public service 4, 7–9, 21, 40, 50, 98, 101, 104–106, 110, 116, 118, 137, 141, 143–144, 146, 151, 156–159, 162, 173, 177n42, 177n48, 177n50, 177n55, 185 scaling 12–13, 18, 27–31, 36, 39, 45, 48n7, 72, 78, 81–84, 116, 121–123, 133n4, 141, 155–156, 169–170, 175, 181–189, 192, 194, 195, 198 Service Lab 8, 40, 98, 104–106, 110–111, 115–116, 118–119, 121, 124, 126–127, 129–130, 187, 190, 192–193, 195 SocialBoost 4, 9, 39, 135, 137–141, 143–150, 154–158, 160, 162, 163n9, 164, 188–190, 193 social change 5, 12, 14, 23, 29–30, 34–39, 45, 49n42, 49n43, 49n48, 79, 82–85, 90, 97n2, 100, 120, 123–124, 134n127, 144, 153, 156–157, 160, 162n4, 169, 175–176, 179–189, 194–196, 199n1 social entrepreneurship 9, 12, 19, 47n21, 53, 57, 59, 62, 123, 126, 129–131, 141–142, 149, 159, 167, 179, 189, 192 social impact 12–13, 25–27, 30, 34, 38–39, 79–81, 85, 90, 101, 118–121, 123, 126, 130, 153–156, 159, 167, 175–176, 181–190, 194 social innovation 1–32, 34–39, 41–42, 44–46, 48n27–67, 51–58, 60–63, 65, 67–100, 102–104, 107–135, 138, 141–145, 147–163, 165–170, 172–173, 175–176, 176n3, 179–199; see also social innovation criteria, social innovation camp, Social Innovation Lab, social innovation project

Index  203 social innovation criteria 1, 13, 61, 160, 168, 180–190, 194, 199 social innovation camp 8, 46, 47n17, 47n18, 100, 103, 111, 116, 130, 131n16, 186, 193 Social Innovation Lab 3, 4, 6, 40, 47n3, 53–56, 69, 73, 75, 77–78, 91, 93–94, 94n9, 98–99, 180–183, 190 social innovation project 1–5, 20, 37, 42, 51–53, 55–56, 58, 60, 61–63, 65, 68, 70–72, 74–80, 82, 84–89, 91–92, 98–99, 102, 104, 106–109, 111–112, 114–118, 120, 122, 124–126, 128–130, 135, 138, 142, 144–145, 147–148, 151, 153, 155, 157–158, 162, 165, 170, 173, 175–176, 179–198 social practice 14–15, 29–30, 32, 34–38, 42, 45, 48n41, 57–58, 64, 67–68, 72, 74, 76–77, 79, 81–84, 107, 110, 112, 123, 144, 147, 151, 153, 156–157, 161–162, 169, 171, 175, 179 Tajikistan 1, 3, 5–6, 41, 47n3, 47n4, 54–56, 62, 69, 77, 80, 86–87, 93–94, 94n9, 168–175, 180, 183, 192–193

Ukraine 1, 3–5, 9, 13, 39, 46, 135–139, 141–145, 147–153, 155–163n34, 167, 171, 176n16–17, 188, 191–195 UNDP 1, 3–12, 21, 26, 39–41, 43–48, 50n62, 50n64, 56–59, 63–64, 67, 70–74, 76–84, 86–87, 89–96n115, 98–100, 102–109, 111–126, 129– 131n12, 133n103, 135–141, 143–149, 153–163, 167–168, 170, 175–177, 183–185, 187, 189–190, 192–196, 198; see also ARGO, Astana Hub, Eurasia Foundation, Internews, Service Lab, UNICEF, USAID UNICEF 1, 3, 3, 5, 5–6, 11–12, 45, 52–53, 53, 64, 68, 75, 77, 82, 86–87, 93, 167, 180–181, 192, 196 USAID 1, 3, 3–4n3, 5, 5–6, 11–12, 41, 45, 51, 55, 60, 64, 75, 77, 86–88, 93–94n1, 166, 180–181, 183, 196 Uzbekistan 1, 3–7, 41, 46–7, 50, 56, 58–61, 63, 65–67, 70–74, 76–87, 89, 91–96n115, 111, 162, 166, 168, 170–176, 180, 183–184, 190, 192–193, 199