Social Innovation as Governance

This type of discourse on social innovation originates mainly from governments and focuses on inclusive public policy processes in order to increase the efficiency of policies. The concept of community participation is nothing new for tourism as tourism has been identified as a “community industry” (Murphy, 1988, 2013). Since the 1980s there have been numerous publications dealing with various aspects of community planning (Grybovych & Hafermann, 2010; Inskeep, 1991; Lew, 2014; Loukissas, 1983; Reid, Mair, & George, 2004), community participation (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Hasse & Milne, 2005; Stone & Stone, 2011; Tosun & Timothy, 2003), and community development (Beeton, 2006; Richards & Hall, 2003) in a tourism context. As community-based tourism as a research field is an integral part of the tourism academy, it is not surprising that the relatively new term ‘social innovation’ to denote improved public policy processes has not found any traction to date (See Malek & Costa, 2015 for an exception).

Although increasing public participation is a main motivation for this social innovation discourse, the focus lies on the provision of opportunities for participation rather than on the inclusion of citizens as active agents throughout the entire process of social innovation (from the identification of challenges, generation and selection of ideas, implementation and final evaluation). In a rare case study, Jordan, Vogt, Kruger, and Grewe (2013) compared two different tourism-planning approaches within a 2 year period in one case study. The collaborative planning model which was developed first was replaced by a council-led process facilitated by an external consultant. This example demonstrates different levels of citizen participation (one process enabling active participation, whereas the council-led process provided opportunities for more passive participation).

The innovation in this governance focused social innovation discourse lies in the adoption of new methods of engaging with the public, resulting in innovations in form and not necessarily in content” (Ilie & During, 2012: 19). Civil society, then, is given a passive role in the policy process, which largely remains controlled by public institutions (Ilie & During, 2012). The following excerpt from a summary of a workshop on social innovation organized by the Bureau of European Policy

Advisers in 2009 is a good example of the governance discourse on social innovation:

To better develop the social innovation dimension in EU policies and programs implemented at national, regional and local level. It also makes suggestions about new institutional provisions to act as a driver for social change. The objective is to improve the quality of life of all citizens and the competitiveness of the European economy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe (Hubert, 2010: p. 13).

The agency of individuals and groups to generate out-of-the-box ideas for solving challenges and for establishing an innovation process suitable to local contexts is ignored. For instance, a case-study of tourism development in Svaneti, Georgia demonstrates the complex shift from providing hospitality for free (a cultural tradition) towards different ways of regulating the commercial provision of hospitality (Voll & Mosedale, 2015). At the beginning of the increase in western tourists to the region, many village communities would collaboratively determine the allocation of tourists to individual households. The rules and regulations regarding the distribution of tourists to homesteads are defined by the community itself, yet not necessarily following a democratic process as decisions may be taken by important personalities as informal representatives of the community (Voll & Mosedale, 2015).