Mahmoud Mokhtari
Abstract
The main idea of this article is based on the comparison of "social innovation" with "technological innovation". In innovation studies, based on Schumpeter's view, innovation is "any invention in ideas, methods, products, services, etc. that are connected to the market and customers" (commercialized ...
Read More
The main idea of this article is based on the comparison of "social innovation" with "technological innovation". In innovation studies, based on Schumpeter's view, innovation is "any invention in ideas, methods, products, services, etc. that are connected to the market and customers" (commercialized invention). According to this definition, until an "invention" has reached the market, it cannot be considered an (Schumpeterian) innovation. Most invented technological artifacts can be commercialized with definite mechanisms, but in the case of social innovations, such a thing is not necessarily desirable even if it is possible. Therefore, the main issue of the article is whether "social innovation" can/should be considered Schumpeterian innovation in principle? To answer this question, "ends" and "means" in social innovation are examined and claim that social innovation is not a Schumpeterian innovation. In a social innovation, the "ends" cannot be "purely non-social" although it may fulfill "in addition to" the social ends, other (economic, technological, ...) ends. If the goal of an innovation is only the economic profit of the company, but the method of achieving the goal is social changes, it is still outside the circle of social innovation. In terms of "means", social innovation depends on the "active role" of individuals and social groups, and is a bottom-up process (active social innovation versus passive social innovation). It is shown that the best "means" for an “active social innovation” is “designing” the social objects (rather than using pre-existing social objects).
