...
首页> 外文期刊>European review >Social Innovation: a Novel Policy Stream or a Policy Compromise? An EU Perspective
【24h】

Social Innovation: a Novel Policy Stream or a Policy Compromise? An EU Perspective

机译:社会创新:新政策还是政策妥协?欧盟视角

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Spurred by the recent global economic crisis, Social Innovation (SI) has gained increasing attention in the European Commission (EC) agenda. However, it remains a heterogeneous and ill-defined concept, whose boundaries are unclear. Currently, within EC discussions, it encapsulates a variety of concepts from social enterprises to societal change. Adopting an ethnographic methodology, this analysis provides insight into the contrasting official 'front-stage' and 'back-stage' views, constraints and practices by which SI has been adopted and promoted by the EC. While the 'front-stage' perspective is more intentionally based on the official situations, documents, and statements, the 'back-stage' is informed by both the ethnographic analysis and its relationship with the 'front-stage' perspective. The main finding of the analysis is that SI might presumably be seen as the only way to align the Commission's conservative-liberal policy, which is rooted in the Lisbon Agenda, with the pressing social demands that stem from the 2008 financial crisis. However, this analysis also indicates that, rather than a novel policy stream, SI can also be seen as a policy compromise that can be used to detract from debates around the need to develop a fully-fledged EU Social Policy; more deeply, it can detract the policy debate from facing a thorough reflection on our society and development model. The analysis here will also provide an overview of the risks associated with current thinking viewed from the perspective of EU players operating in the socio-political domain.
机译:在最近的全球经济危机的刺激下,社会创新(SI)在欧盟委员会(EC)议程中越来越受到关注。但是,它仍然是一个异构且定义不清的概念,其边界尚不清楚。当前,在EC讨论中,它囊括了从社会企业到社会变革的各种概念。通过采用人种志方法学,该分析可洞悉EC所采用和推广的SI的不同官方“前期”和“后台”观点,限制和做法。虽然“前期”观点更有意基于官方情况,文件和声明,但“后阶段”是由人种学分析及其与“前期”观点的关系所决定的。分析的主要发现是,SI可能被认为是使委员会的“保守-自由”政策根植于《里斯本议程》与2008年金融危机引起的紧迫社会需求相一致的唯一方法。但是,这种分析还表明,SI不仅是一种新颖的政策,而且还可以看作是一种政策妥协,可以用来减损围绕制定全面的欧盟社会政策的必要性的辩论。更深入地讲,它可能会使政策辩论无法从对我们的社会和发展模式进行全面反思的角度出发。此处的分析还将概述从社会政治领域中的欧盟参与者的角度来看与当前思想相关的风险。

著录项

  • 来源
    《European review》 |2014年第1期|145-169|共25页
  • 作者

    MATTEO BONIFACIO;

  • 作者单位

    University of Trento, Department of Engineering and Information Science (DISI), Via Sommarive 5, 38123 Povo di Trento, Italy;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号