Search

In this paper, we explore the idea of social innovation as both a conceptual and practical means of delivering positive social, economic and environmental outcomes in marginal rural areas. Definitions are critically appraised, and the dual contemporary origins of the term social innovation (in management sciences and critical social science) are explored. There has been much conceptual confusion, in particular about the extent to which civil society agency is central or desirable in social innovation. Social innovation can be seen to be closely connected to a range of theories that inform both innovation and rural development, but it lacks a singular theoretical home;. Social innovation can also have a dark side, which merits scrutiny. Three case studies illustrate social innovation pro- cesses and outcomes in different parts of Europe. Where committed actors, local enabling agency and overarching policies align, the outcomes of social innovations can be considerable. If rarely transformational, social innovation has shown itself capable of delivering positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes in more bounded spatial settings. It seems questionable whether social innovation will survive as an organising and capacity building concept alongside more established principles, such as community-led local development, which, although not exactly social innovation, is very similar and already firmly embedded in policy guidance or whether it will be replaced by new equally fuzzy ideas, such as the smart village approach.

Though widely regarded as ill-defined and lacking conceptual clarity social innovation has been heralded as a desirable response to social economic and environmental challenges arising from market and policy failures. Based on a definition of social innovation as involving the reconfiguration of social practices through civil society engagement, this paper offers an indictive classification of the diverse types of social innovation found in Scotland, based primarily on rural examples. It is argued that not only does social innovation occur in a diverse range of fields and in many different forms, but also that the Scottish Government policy has explicitly connected to social innovation as a means of delivering a communitarian policy agenda. However, without affirmative action, the community empowerment agenda is likely to widen the gap between communities with strong social capital and those with weaker social capital, thus undermining another strong strand of Scottish policy which supports greater equality and social inclusion.

Both the policy context and institutional architectures for community engagement have changed rapidly in Scotland over last decade. After 2003, the early engagement of communities with renewables was almost exclusively through development trusts, acting alone or collaboratively. More recently, cooperatives and benefit societies have become more common. Informed by ideas from social innovation, this paper explores the evolution of the support ecosystem for community renewables and examines the influence of institutional structures on social, economic and environmental outcomes. Recent changes in UK policy have made social innovation in community energy much more challenging, although shared ownership/shared revenue models remain an opportunity to be more deeply explored. Three main models of ownership are explored: the community development trust; the cooperative or community benefit society and the shared ownership model, where the community entity is normally a development trust. While the small number of cases examined limits the scope for generalisation, the community development trust appears to offer the greatest range and scale of local beneficial outcomes for sustainable rural development, but the level of impact on emissions reduction varies and the primary motive has most often been income generation for local development.