Towards a Theoretical Framework for Social Impact Bonds

Bibliographic Data

ID13038465
AuthorsKevin Albertson (0000-0001-6678-5590, Manchester Metropolitan University), Chris Fox (0000-0001-9480-5704, Manchester Metropolitan University, corresponding author), Chris O’leary (0000-0002-4097-8439, Manchester Metropolitan University), Gary Painter (0000-0002-2962-4904, University of Southern California)
Year2020
Volume11
Issue2
Publication date2020-02-12
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueNonprofit Policy Forum (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2154-3348 • E-ISSN: 2194-6035
PublisherDe Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/npf-2019-0056
OpenAlexW3005668137
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited32

Governments in some of the world’s richest nations appear to be caught in a double challenge of declining social budgets even as social needs are increasing. In this context, Outcomes Based Commissioning (OBC), has been suggested as one way in which ‘more’ social services can be provided for ‘less’ public resources. This form of commissioning is often linked with a new financing tool for social services, referred to in the US as ‘Pay for Success and Payment by Results in the UK or as a ‘Social Impact Bond’ (SIB). However, to date, this approach is under-theorised and this is a limiting factor both for shaping a research and evaluation agenda around SIBs and in understanding how such instruments might develop in future. Without a theoretical rationale for SIBs, it is not straightforward to assess whether, and how well, they have achieved their goals, and how they might be developed further. In this paper we consider two broad approaches to theorising SIBs. One draws on public administration theories, the other on innovation theories. To date, SIBs have often been theorised as the logical next step in the New Public Management (NPM). But NPM itself is a contested theory and recent theoretical innovations in public administration, particularly the concept of New Public Governance might provide a more useful theoretical framework. A second broad approach through which to understand SIBs is their potential to improve the rate and dissemination of innovation. There are many different innovation models that might be applied to better understanding of SIBs. We look first at the concept of Open Innovation with its focus on distributed innovation processes in which knowledge flows across organisational boundaries and more recent articulations – Open Innovation 2.0 – which place greater emphasis on mixed economy collabarations involving: industry; government; universities; and communities and users (the so-called ‘quadruple helix’) to solve societal challenges. We go on to consider social innovation, with its clearer focus on using social means to deliver social outcomes and whether SIBs can be theorised through this lens. No one model is entirely satisfactory as an explanatory framework for SIBs and we conclude by suggesting that a supporting theory combining NPG with elements of Open Innovation 2.0 and social innovation might be a productive approach for shaping future research and, in addition, might suggest some future directions for the next generation of SIBs

Bond · Business · Context (archaeology · Corporate governance · Economics · Economy · Limiting · Management · New public management · Payment · Political science · Positive economics · Project commissioning · Public economics · Public relations · Public sector · Publishing · Community Development and Social Impact · Engineering · Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development · Public-Private Partnership Projects · Finance

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access