Jouko Nikula, Inna Kopoteva, Miira Niska, Egle Butkeviciene, Leo Granberg (eds.): Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Finnish Centre for Russian and Eastern European Studies University of Helsinki January 2011
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 6 Jouko Nikula, Leo Granberg
2. Theoretical and Methodological Context ...... 11 Jouko Nikula, Inna Kopoteva, Miira Niska, Egle Butkeviciene, Leo Granberg
Social innovations and the promise of new kind of rural development...... 11 Social partnerships as a developmental block ...... 33 Research methods and data ...... 48
3. Description of Case Locations...... 55 Inna Kopoteva, Miira Niska, Egle Butkeviciene
4. Expert Knowledge ...... 70 Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Ekaterina Pugina, Alexander Shkerin, Egle Butkeviciene
5. Social innovations and partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania...... 80 Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Alexander Shkerin, Jouko Nikula, Egle Butkeviciene
Village Sports and Rock Art Center as social innovations in Finland ...... 80 Social innovations in the Semenov district in Russia ...... 110 Social innovations in Lithuania ...... 151
6. Revisiting social innovations and social partnerships – the focus group studies ...... 173 Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Alexander Shkerin, Egle Butkeviciene
7. Comparative considerations and conclusions ...... 226 Jouko Nikula, Leo Granberg
Bibliography ...... 235
Appendix: List of interviewees in Finland, Russia and Lithuania ...... 246
2
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
List of tables
1: Models of rural development…………………………………………………...…………43
2: Administrative structure of three countries and selected cases ...... 57
3: Key problems of South Savo………………………………………………………………71
4: Proposed projects in South Savo…………………………………………………………..72
5: Key problems of Nizhny Novgorod region……………………………………………..…74
6. Key problems of Lithuanian rural regions………………..……………………………….77
7. Proposed projects in Lithuanian rural regions…………………………………………..…77
8: Heifer’s project description……………………………………………………….……...123
9: Amount of focus groups’ participants……………………………………………………173
10: Participants of focus groups in Ristiina 1–3…………………………………….……...174
11: Participants of focus group 4 in Ristiina ……………………………………….……...174
12: Key problems of Ristiina……………………………………………………………….177
13: Possible ways to solve problems of Ristiina…………….……………………………...181
14: Actions already executed in Ristiina…………………...... …184
15: Participants of focus groups 1-3 in Semenov ……………………………………….….195
16: Participants of focus group 4……………………………………………………………196
17: Key problems of Semenov district……………………………………………...………200
18: Ways to solve problems of Semenov district……………………………………...……208
19: Participants of focus groups 1-3 in Balninkai…………………………………..………217
20: Participants of focus group 4 in Balninkai……………………………………………...217
21: Key problems of Balninkai……………………………………………………………..219
22: Ways to solve problems of Balninkai…………………………………………………..224
23: Summary table of Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania…………………………………………………………………………………….226
3
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
List of figures
1: The social economy………………………………………………………………………..17
2: The steps of second order innovation ……………….……………………………...... 23
3: The interplay of different actors in the implementation and development of social innovation…………………………………………………………………………………….28
4: Interrelation between social system and social innovation..……………………………....29
5: Elements of social capital……………………………………………………………..…...30
6: Key features of neo-endogenous development…………………………………………....44
7: Central actors of the Village Sport project……………………………………………..….88
8: The network of the Village Sport project……………………………………………….....89
9: Central actors of the Rock Art Centre project……………………………………………101
10: The network of the Rock Art Centre project……………………………………………103
11: Central actors in the Shelter and School of young farmer……………………………...116
12: The network of the Shelter and School of young farmer……………………………….117
13: Central actors in the Sheep project……………………………………………………..125
14: The network of the Sheep project……………………………………………………....125
15: Central actors of the Credit cooperative………………………………………………..138
16: The network of the Credit cooperative……………………..…………………………..139
17: The scheme of social innovation development in Dargiaiciai community…………..…154
18: Central actors of the Dargiaiciai community…………………………………………...157
19: The idea of social innovation development in Dargiaiciai…………………………...…158
20: The scheme of segmentation of social innovation…………...…………………………160
21: The symbol of Balninkai community……………………..……………………………163
22: Community development in Balninkai as a social innovation..………………………...165
23: Central actors of the Balninkai community development…………………………...…167
24: The idea of social innovation development in Balninkai…………………………….....168
4
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
List of maps
1: Project countries...... 55
2: Location of South Savo……………………………………………………………………58
3: Location of Ristiina……………………………….……………………………………….62
4: Location of Nizhny Novgorod region………………….……………………………….…64
5: Location of Semenov district…………………………………………………………...... 65
6: Location of Siauliai and Utena counties…………………………………………………..67
7: Location of Dargaiciai village……………………………………………………………..68
8: Location of Balninkai township………………………………………………………...…69
List of photos
1. Villagers exercisingcing…………..………………………………………………………82
2: Sport Trailer………………………..……………………………………………………...85
3: Astuvansalmi……………………………………………………………………………....93
4: Rock paintings on a craggy cliff of Astuvansalmi...... 95
5: Childrens’ shelter in Semenov...... 113
6: The projects of Children’s Shelter...... 114
7: A girl from shelter taking care of a sheep………………………………………………..119
8: The Romanov sheep...... 127
9: A view from Dargaiciai ethnographic village………………………………………….. 153
10: Website of Balninkai community……………………………………………………….164
11: View from Balninkai…………………………………………………………………....170
12: The development of social innovation in Balninkai since 2001………………………..221
13: The future vision of Balninkai………………………………………………………….222
14: The vision of “Good Balninkai”…………………………………………………….… 222
5
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
1. Introduction
Jouko Nikula, Leo Granberg
The roots of this study go back long to the past – already during late 1970’s the main editor of this publication participated in a study on the village movement in Northern Finland. One aspect of the project was to analyze what kinds of relations there were between the villagers, local entrepreneurs and local administration. The key aim of the project was to decentralize decision making on local development by creating a middle layer to regional administration. The project was a clear antecedent of LEADER-activity, which spread around Europe much later, i.e. from 1991.
In 1992-1993 another research project was started in the Baltic countries. This project analyzed the ongoing de-collectivization processes in these countries, and it was followed later on by studies of the social, economic and psychological consequences of the above- mentioned processes. It was already evident then that de-collectivization was not bringing any good results in any of these spheres; economically it led to destruction of productive capital, fragmentation of production and rapidly rising levels of poverty. In the studied localities, the psychological and social results were deepening anomie, dissolution of former forms of collectivity, rising alcoholism, divorces, unemployment and declining lifespan. The relationship between the local administration and local population was severed in each case; relations between the local administration and the national government practically did not exist. All actors mainly tried to survive and in order to do so they could only rely on their own networks. Things started to change only after the Baltic countries began their process of integration to the European Union.
In the turn of the Millennium, we began our studies in Russia which had experienced same kinds of processes in early 1990’s although the complete dissolution of former structures and practices had been halted since mid-90ies. Despite this, the rural areas in Russia suffered from same kinds of problems as the Baltic countries, and even though Putin’s government introduced a number of reforms of local administration and regional development programs, not very much has taken place. Rural areas in Western Europe and in Central Eastern Europe, as well as in Russia, are suffering from ageing population, loss of labor, outmigration of the
6
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
aged as well as of the young as a consequence of lack of employment and scarcity of services like education or health-care.
These problems became more acute in Western Europe already in the 1980’s and as traditional agriculture has lost its role as the main provider of livelihood, national governments and international bodies have urged local people, local enterprises and administration to find new cooperative solutions. The countryside also won new opportunities, because of social change towards post-Fordist and post-consumption society. The response of the European Union to these challenges has been the LEADER-program which specifically aims at boosting local activity and harnessing local skills and enthusiasm in order to meet external opportunities and to produce common goods for the local community. In order to move in this varying terrain in our research, we outlined the key processes of rural change as follows:
Political Economic Socio-cultural
Shift from sector-specific policies Economic transition (RU, New ideas of toward integrated rural policy (EU) EU new members states) rurality and nature (EU) Integration of delivery mechanisms for Growth of multifunctional rural policy within wider policy agriculture (EU) Social framework (EU) differentiation at Emergence of new form of local level (RU) Empowerment of communities (EU, non-agricultural RU) entrepreneurship (EU, RU) Rural poverty (EU, RU) Integration of local and external Large-scale farming (RU) processes (EU, RU) Marginalisation of rural National projects (RU) areas (dying villages vs. dacha villages, RU) Administrative and municipal reforms (RU)
Shift from governing to governance (EU, RU)
7
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The objective of our study was to analyse emergent forms of social partnerships and social innovations, which these partnerships produce and implement. We were especially interested in local social innovations which were generated to overcome the negative social and economic consequences of restructuring processes. Our choice was to analyse social innovations on the local level, in selected rural areas of three countries (Finland, Lithuania, and Russia). For this purpose, we defined social innovations as programs, principles, practices or organizational forms that serve some common interest at local level, i.e. only innovations that have wider effects on the local level. Thus, individual innovations are excluded. The key research questions of the project were formulated as follows:
1. What is the role of contextual factors in the success of social partnership and social innovation? 2. While analysing the actors and partnerships in social innovation processes, who are the initiators of innovations, who disseminate them and who institutionalise them at the local level? 3. How is co-ordination and networking of territorial initiatives organised? 4. What kinds of social consequences do the social innovations have?
Our main interest was to study whether social partnership can facilitate sustainable development. To study this question we operationalized it in the following set of hypotheses:
1. The success of social innovation depends strongly on the socio-economic and cultural context where it is done. 2. The generation of social innovations is more active in villages, where the economic and social structure is diversified. 3. The generation of social innovations at local level is dependent on the level of social innovation capital (McElroy 2001). 4. The most active stake-holders in social partnership are the ones who possess plenty of the different forms of capital. 5. The most important form of capital, however, is social capital which resides in the social networks. 6. The success of social innovation is dependent on the active participation and support of the stake-holders at the local level.
8
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
7. The sustainability of the success of social innovation also entails support and commitment from partners outside of the local community. 8. Social innovation mitigates such negative consequences of restructuration as poverty and social exclusion. 9. Partnerships reinforce the development of an active civil society. 10. The dissemination of social innovation through imitation is not likely to be a successful strategy.
The research process
The first meeting of the project took place in January 2007 in Helsinki, where the concepts, alternative methods, time-tables and the selection of cases were discussed intensely. The first stage of the study included a secondary sources-based analysis of the key features of social development and of the problems in the selected regions and localities. At this stage expert interviews were also conducted. The experts were local administrators, representatives of NGOs and other relevant informants, and they were consulted in order to map the existing forms of partnerships and social innovations which had been generated through the partnerships. The expert interviews took place in May 2007 in Finland and in October 2007 in Lithuania and in Russia.
On the basis of the results from the first stage, we selected for intensive research two or three social innovations from each study region as well as those forms of partnerships which seemed to work. The main part of the study was an iterative action research-type study on social partnerships and social innovations. The data collected by the above mentioned methods (participatory observation, qualitative interviews and informal discussions) formed the basis for a series of focus group studies with the stake-holders and actors who had taken part in the process of social innovation by being involved in their generation, dissemination and institutionalisation.
Research teams, division of labour and funding
Finland Professor Leo Granberg, University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute: Project leader; Dr Jouko Nikula, University of Helsinki, Aleksanteri-institute: principal researcher and responsible for the planning of the stages of research and for comparative analysis, participation in fieldwork in Finland, Russia and Lithuania. Dr Nikula has also been the
9
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
editor-in-chief of the final report. Soc.lis. Inna Kopoteva, University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute: coordination of collaboration between teams and participating field work in Russia, analysis and reporting. M.Soc.Sci Miira Niska, University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research, responsible for field work in Finland: analysis and reporting. M.A. Manu Rantanen, University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute: contributing field work in Finland.
Lithuania: Professor Leonardas Rinkevicius, Technical University of Kaunas, Department of Sociology: Head of the team. Associate Professor Egle Butkeviciene, Technical University of Kaunas, Department of Sociology: responsible for field work in Lithuania, analysis and reporting.
Russia: Dr Aleksandr Bedny, University of Nizhny Novgorod, Department of Economics and Management: Head of the team. M.A. Alexander Shkerin, University of Nizhny Novgorod, Department of Economics and Management: organisation and assistance in the field work in Russia, participation in the analysis and reporting together with Soc.Lis. Inna Kopoteva. M.A. Katerina Pugina, University of Nizhny Novgorod, Department of Economics and Management: organisation and conducting the first expert interviews in Nizhny Novgorod in August 2007.
The current project was funded by the Academy of Finland, which launched a special call for Internationalization of Rural Studies in September 2006. We are indebted to the numerous people in the studied municipalities and projects in Finland, Lithuania and Russia who provided us with an in-depth insight into local circumstances. We also received substantial background information from experts and public officers in these countries. Ljubov Krasnova welcomed us and assisted us in collecting data in Semonov. Kari Lehtonen participated in the project and helped us to advande the work. Numerous other colleages in Finland, Lithuania and Russia assisted us in many ways. Anneli Portman revised the language. A final thanks also to the series editor, Elina Kahla.
10
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
2. Theoretical and Methodological Context Jouko Nikula, Inna Kopoteva, Miira Niska, Egle Butkeviciene, Leo Granberg
Social innovations and the promise of new kind of rural development One stimulus which has sustained the discussion on social innovations has been a conviction that a decisive rupture is taking place in the development of modern societies. This change seems to have the following key features. First, the assumption that the days are over for the industrial or “managerial capitalism”, which Alvin Toffler characterized already in 1980’s as follows:
The Second Wave Society is based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, and weapons of mass destruction. You combine those things with standardization, centralization, concentration, and synchronization, and you wind up with a style of organization we call bureaucracy. (Toffler 1981, 46)
In tune with Toffler, Zuboff & Maxmin (2004, 1) asserted that: “Today’s business model is broken and cannot be fixed with the available tools.” Some contributors see the presumed change as an innovation, for example Murray et al. (2009) note that
We are currently in the midst of a period of transformative innovation. At one of the rare moments when a new set of paradigms challenges the previous ones. In place of the old world of mass production, with its standardized products and services, we have seen the emergence of a new world.
In this New World the hierarchical organizations (as is mass production), are giving way to more decentralized and networked organizational structure, as Murray et al. note;
(This) new world is one formed around distributed systems as much as centralized structures. It handles complexity not by standardization and simplification imposed from the centre, but by distributing complexity to the margins – to the local managers and workers on the shop floor, as much as to the consumers themselves.
Secondly, there is a close link between the conviction of the epochal change of modern societies and the belief in the massive impact that information technologies should have in the ways in which societies function. Information technologies are expected to bring 11
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
remedies to bureaucratization, loss of community and lack of services. But most importantly, information technologies provide the basis for increasing individualization. For Toffler the Third Wave or the “super-industrial society” implied a more individualized society and a more direct democracy through the internet1.
There is more diversity in lifestyles, consumption patterns and forms of organizations, in addition the post-industrial society is also characterized by flexibility, growth of alternatives and individualization (Toffler 1980, 10). Also Zuboff & Maxmin (2004) finds a solution for maladies of mass society in the new technologies, which give rise to new enterprises and new markets. This process has evolved as a consequence of two conflicting tendencies. On one hand there has been a tendency of growing individualism, but at the same time the emergence of a network society has been a key feature of social development (Castells 1996, etc.). There will be
a convergence of the three forces necessary for economic revolution. These are new markets replete with unfulfilled needs, new technologies that can be leveraged to meet those needs at an affordable price, and new enterprise logic to link people and technologies in wholly new patterns. (Zuboff & Maxmin 2004, 1.)
For Murray et al. information technology in the form of social network tools and global networks (see also Castells 1996) is one of the key forces behind the current social transformations and behind the growing emphasis on the individual, “putting people first, giving democratic voice and starting with the individual and relationships rather than systems and structures” (Murray et al. 2009). Zuboff and Maxmin maintain that there is an emergence of “a new society of individuals”, who see themselves as unique individuals, seeking psychological self-determination. They want to take their life in their own hands and they want their voice to be heard and to be meaningful. These new individuals also seek community without the old feudal demands of conformity. Zuboff and Maxmin note:
We seek advocacy instead of adversarialism; relationships instead of transactions; trust instead of tricks; real voice instead of meaningless choices. We want our time back. We want to eliminate stress and hassle. All of this means a fundamental shift
1 See also Habermas 1989; 2006; Hague & Loader 1999; Wilhelm 2000, Crossley & Roberts 2004 12
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
in the structure of consumption from mass consumption to what I call “the individuation of consumption (Zuboff & Maxmin 2004, 2).
The new individual is a self-confident and conscious consumer, who knows his/her worth and the worth of goods and services. Therefore the new individual is capable of demanding quality and recognition both from the public and private sector actors:
The role of the consumer changes as a result, from a passive to an active player, not only as a navigator and even shaper of the emerging kingdom governed by the tyranny of choice, but as a producer in their own right – Alvin Toffler’s ‘prosumer’. (Murray et al. 2009)
The new capitalism is distributed capitalism by nature where business is aligned with people and their needs, thus creating long-term relationships based on trust. This is the basis for the shift to a “support economy, where the assets of the enterprises consist of information, authority, technology and people, and these assets are distributed around the consumer (Zuboff & Maxmin 2004, 2).
To some extent it is possible to relate these ideas to the overall ideology of societal change which dominated most western countries in 1990’s. In neo-liberal thinking the centralized organization of society had become obsolete and the general welfare-state policies were considered as inefficient and detrimental for the economic competitiveness. In order to improve competitiveness, more flexibility and individual solutions were needed in working life, in leisure and in the general regulation of economy.
Risks and threats of the late modern
Another side of the individualization theme is an increased scale of risks and threats in the contemporary society. New kinds of uncertainties and risks force individuals, communities and even nations to envision new solutions in order to organize the society and the production of goods and services. Giddens (1991; see also Beck 1988) argues that in 'high' or 'late' modernity the development of social institutions provide huge opportunities for security and for an abundant life. The technological progress of modernity also means vastly bigger risks of environmental destruction, growing rates of poverty and the degrading nature of industrial work. In the development of risk society, there are two processes in operation: there is both
13
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the loss of nature and the loss of tradition (Giddens 1999). The first loss means that no part of nature is beyond human intervention (through biology, technology, etc.), and the second loss means that our destinies are not pre-determined by social background or cultural habits and tradition, but we have more control over our destinies, i.e. the society has become more individualized (Giddens 1999, 3). The rapid development of the late modern society means that the degree of uncertainty and anxiety has also been boosted together with increased individualization and with the crossing of the borders of natural, cultural or social structures, which have prevented our desire for knowing more and have thereby controlled more of the pre-set conditions of our lives. The deepening and widening of modernity (called “globalization”) is therefore producing unintended consequences such as the accelerated pace of life, the undermining of our former certainties and the increasing of our sense of insecurity. Seeking security in the context of multiplying risks requires the ability to find new solutions, i.e. reflexivity. In this sense reflexivity and reflexive modernization open up the space for social innovations as a reflexive response to identified risks of contemporary society (Giddens 1999, 5).
Until very recently there was a conviction that most problems can be solved through the progress of technological innovations; for instance, the using of new technologies promises more production and better quality of products. However, an increased awareness of numerous threats and risks in the modern society has ensured people that all problems are not just technological dilemmas. Accordingly, innovation is much more than just a technical matter. From this perspective it is evident that successful innovations require cooperation, mutual learning and networking. For example Murray et al. (2009) argue that processes which promote the development of social innovations stem from many global challenges (global warming, food crisis, global diseases) and from the limitations of the nation-states or private companies to deal with these problems, both on organizational and financial terms. They also note the rigidity of current organizational structures in the face of the demands of the new challenges and the available technologies. Such challenges and limitations compel governments, enterprises and even individuals to find new and sustainable solutions to the current critical situation. There are four key issues that modern societies are facing and these issues also promote the development of social innovations. In each case rural areas are a special matter of concern.
14
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
1. Environmental issues
x General awareness and the responses to growing environmental problems force the society to find new ways of doing things (recycling, eco-villages, wind mills, local food). Also the combined threats of environmental and social problems emphasize the need to find new solutions. The last, but not the least problem is climate change which urges far-reaching solutions. It challenges economic growth as the leading motive of economic development and calls for solutions which protect global biodiversity (that is, living organisms) and support functioning of ecosystem services (Constanza et al. 1997). Such political measures will often be targeted to large spatial areas, and large parts of them to the countryside.
2. Changes in production structures and practices
x The ongoing socio-economic changes cause falling demand of labor force and increase the number of ageing and retiring population. These are the reasons behind situations in which tax revenues decrease for local authorities thus aggravating the maintenance of public services. This then in turn forces the authorities to stream-line the public sector and welfare services. A consequence of this is the decline in public funding of welfare services and the growing importance of private actors. This is most typical for rural areas, where outmigration aggravates the vicious circle. x These processes highlight the need to find ways of solving the problems of development of the urban and rural areas in the context of declining revenues. It is, indeed, highly relevant to ask whether it is reasonable to maintain existing housing structure and all the necessary services. Also, it is right to ask how to organize necessary services for those who are staying in these places. Finally, it is very important to find a viable solution for granting livelihood (employment) for the population in declining and marginalized areas. One of the key trends in this area has been rapidly increasing outsourcing of auxiliary and servicing tasks, where public sector sheds part of the services to private business as well as to third sector actors. This is in line with the tendency to “privatize” the public sector and to transfer public services to private sector. Complicated and contradictory processes are found in third sector while it is being pulled to be a stakeholder in market economy.
15
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
3. From production orientation to service/leisure orientation in rural areas
x Rural areas in Western Europe, and during 21sts Century also in Eastern and Central Europe, have gone through rapid and extensive transformation both in terms of functions and quality. Agriculture does not characterize rural areas anymore in the same extent that it still did one generation ago. Traditional agricultural producers are nowadays a minority, but they are more professional, more highly educated and economically more important than ever. Increasing share of rural livelihoods is based on services that utilize nature. Most important nature-based activity is tourism together with activities closely linked with tourism – such as catering and accommodation enterprises, handicraft and other forms of cultural entrepreneurship. x Also the second-house owners represent an increasingly important group for rural developers. The development of communication technologies makes it much easier to settle also outside the urban areas and to start living permanently in rural areas or at least to live there for a prolonged summer season. Improving housing and infrastructure makes it possible to attain new residents to rural areas, especially areas close to larger cities. Growing presence of new rural residents will generate new needs to be fulfilled (house construction and repairing and maintenance of infrastructure, for example) and in that way provide a substrate for new entrepreneurial activities instead of farming and related industries.
4. Technological change
x Development of IT and communication technologies make it possible to overcome or to reduce the risks of geographical as well as social isolation. They also make it easier to provide services (net-doctors, e-shopping, digital libraries, etc.) or to disseminate new ideas. Many of the new services are already based on the Net or on mobile phones. In many countries there are good experiences of organizing virtual meeting points or new forms of community through communication technologies.
From this aspect the emergence of “distributed networks”, meaning a change from vertical relationships between a client and a firm or a provider of public service, is a most central feature in this development. The growth of links of cooperation is underway, as well as the broadening of interface between different economic sectors. These processes can give rise to
16
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
a kind of a hybrid economy, where borders of sectors are blurred, both in terms of operational principles or division of tasks and duties (Murray et al. 2009). In this view social innovations take place in the area of social economy, which is the area that links all other sectors of economy. Social economy is an area where four sub-economies contribute together (figure 1). The argument is that none of the sub-economies are purely private or purely public, but their borders are blurred and functions overlap.
Figure 1: The social economy
The Market The The Social State Economy
The Grant The Economy Household
Adopted from Murray et al. (2009, 6)
What is a social innovation?
Social innovations are production and integration of new knowledge in the form of programs, organizational models or definite set of principles and other means which are utilized at local level to respond and react to positive and negative results of restructuring. (Dees & Anderson & Wei-Skillern 2004, 26).
The definition by Dees et al. is adopted for this research project. Before we proceed with the characteristics and functions of social innovation, we have to define the term innovation itself. Scientific literature presents different definitions of this concept. Rogers (1983; 1995; 2003) one of the most known authorities on the innovation theory, defined an innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or another unit of
17
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
adoption”. However, Schumpeter had a wider definition of economic innovation. For him an innovation is an introduction of a new goods or new quality of goods or new method of production of goods. Innovation can also be opening of a new market for goods or a new source of supply of raw materials. Finally the creation of a new organization of any industry (monopoly position or the dissolution of a monopoly position) represents an innovation. For Schumpeter innovation included also social aspects (Schumpeter 1934).
Social innovation is a relatively new concept: it has become more central theme in social sciences only during the last 10-15 years2. Throughout 1990’s the concept was mainly related to managerial and business administration theories, which attempted to reform managerial practices in business organizations. Here the emphasis was on improving social capital in business organizations in order to boost economic efficiency and general innovativeness of the sector. In the field of regional and rural development the concept of social innovation came with projects and administrative efforts to resolve the developmental problems of rural and urban areas. It was linked with different ideas that strove to mitigate the destructive and dissolving effects of globalization on local communities. The key role in this was the creation of new institutions and “practices to promote responsible and sustainable development of communities as well as more democratic governance structures.” (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1976)
There are two differing ways of understanding the concept of social innovation, either it is a phenomenon at”micro level” or it takes place at ”macro level.” One can say also that there are “systemic” social innovations and “practical” social innovations (Taipale & Hämäläinen 2007).
Those who see social innovation as a micro level phenomenon, emphasize newness as the key element in their definition. For example, for Mumford (2002) social innovation is about generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities to meet one or more common goals. For Mulgan et al. (2006) the question is about new ideas that work.
Those, who see social innovation as a more social or systemic issue emphasize changes, reforms, programs or organizational models. Moulaert et al. (2005) define social innovations
2 Stefan Dedijer wrote about social innovations in late 1980’s. 18
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
as changes in institutions and agency that are meant for social inclusion. In doing so, they lean on the school of new institutionalism, by defining institutions as having both formal (set of laws, regulations) and informal (norms, values or habitus) side. Hämäläinen & Heiskala (2004) view social innovations from the same angle, for them social innovations are mostly a systemic issue; however, their point of view is different from that of Moulaert et al. (2005) For Hämäläinen & Heiskala (2004) social innovations represent the kind of reforms in political interventions, organizational structures and operational models which improve efficiency and functionality of the society. They do not speak about capabilities or inclusion of people and their empowerment to participate in society. For them functionality of society is the key issue.
There are several other, inter-related aspects which are important to be taken into account, when we define the nature of social innovations. The most important of them are:
Knowledge in social innovation. Andersen (2008) distinguishes two kinds of knowledge: “know-what” (explicit knowledge) and “know-how” (tacit knowledge). Both explicit and tacit knowledge facilitate the creation of social innovations. When local knowledge is shared in the community, it creates a pool of knowledge, which, again, creates an opportunity for synergy effects. Such a pool of shared knowledge fosters creation and development of social innovations.
Newness. As we already noted above (see also Felix 2003), common criterion of all the definitions of innovation is newness. Social innovations are new ideas, new projects or new knowledge, and also already existing ideas or knowledge, which are adopted in a new way or in a new context.
Immateriality. Usually social innovation is understood as new idea, project, knowledge that results in some social change. Material outcomes emerge just as supplementary results.
Individual entrepreneurship. Alone or in any organization, the entrepreneur works as an agent of change (Andersen 2008). Entrepreneurship means, in its widest and deepest sense, the ability to seek and to create new ways of producing or doing things, and in this sense the entrepreneur is by definition an agent of change. As far as a social innovation is concerned, individual entrepreneurship is a very important source of facilitating the development of an idea of social innovation. As Andersen emphasizes, “It is not surprising that the entrepreneur
19
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
appears as a hero in the innovation discourse and the modernization rhetoric.” (Andersen 2008, 55).
Another aspect of entrepreneurship is described with the concept of the social innovator. He/she can be a (social) entrepreneur, an active citizen or a political actor. Distinguishing feature of a social entrepreneur in comparison to an entrepreneur in general, is that a social entrepreneur gives first priority to the social aspects and only the second place to the economic aspects. He or she may work only in the marketplace or may find funding from public or private donors. Political entrepreneur is a concept which does not refer to an enterprise but refers to a politically active person with entrepreneurial characteristics. He or she is a civil servant or a political person who aims to reform political structures or procedures in order to facilitate common goals (economic or social). (An example from rural policy, see Csité & Granberg 2003, 80).
“Bottom-up” initiatives. In the understanding of social innovation we cannot neglect “top- down” innovations. There are three main ways used to stimulate the development of a social innovation:
o external actors initiate and facilitate the development of a social innovation (top – down approach); o local actors initiate and develop a social innovation (grass-root level or bottom – up approach); o local actors initiate social innovation, but are not able to implement ideas without the contribution by external actors, who facilitate the local institutional capacity (mixed top - down and bottom – up approach).
Key functions of social innovations
The presented definition by Dees & Anderson &Wei-Skillern (2004, 26) connects social innovations to new knowledge, which is implemented in a new way in order to respond and to react to the results of restructuring.These can bring about changes in institutions and in agency. In this regard social innovations serve mainly some common goods or general needs. This definition excludes innovations which are only connected to individual causes or individual interests. Examples of social innovations are, for instance, social projects to combat poverty and projects aiming at the establishment of social entrepreneurship (micro
20
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
enterprises) or at strengthening the social networks of social entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurship is often based on activities in the third sector, and among other forms, it may also take neo-cooperative forms of activity. These kinds of social innovations are based on network ties between local actors as well as between local and regional or other external actors.
The concept social innovation includes a both normative and analytical aspect and from this perspective Moulaert et al. (2005, 1976) (see also Gerometta et al. 2005), analyze the basic functions of social innovations. They stress three core dimensions of the concept of social innovation:
(1) The satisfaction of human needs that are not currently satisfied, either because ‘not yet’ or because ‘no longer’ perceived as important by either the market or the state (content/product dimension);
(2) changes in social relations especially with regard to governance also increase the level of participation of all, but especially deprived groups in society (process dimension);
(3) An increase in the socio-political capability and access to resources (empowerment dimension).
Social innovations in neo-endogenous development policy
Social innovation is clearly connected to development issues, because it is in itself already a reaction to the restructuration of society, but also because it is part of the efforts in local development policy. Our thinking is based on the view that the key to local development is neo-endogenous development, which means “building a local institutional capacity able both to mobilize internal resources and to cope with external forces acting on a region” (Ward et al. 2005, 5). As Oksa (2004) argues, in this respect the crucial task for local (rural) development is the pooling of external resources with local resources by networking. Hence, the economic development in rural areas is dependent on the ability to innovate. Innovativeness entails that stake-holders generate cooperative networks to solve their problems.
Looking at the issue other way round, one can argue, like Saraceno (1995) that in order to be successful, a social innovation must tap into the traditions in the area and that there also
21
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
needs to be enough necessary skills available, i.e. a combination of social and cultural capital. Oksa (ibid.) notes also, that innovativeness entails cooperative relations between different actors and willingness to mutual learning. This in turn emphasizes the role of social networks and trust, i.e. a developed form of social capital.
Social innovations are like other kinds of innovations as to the uncertainty of the results of the innovation. Successful social innovations should be culturally acceptable, economically sustainable and technologically feasible. When an innovation is initiated there are no guarantees of its successful implementation. Particular organizations and individuals react to innovation in a variety of ways; just one of the ways is full adoption. “The innovation might be adopted rapidly and fully, adapted with significant modifications, or ignored. Over time, the innovation might be abandoned or it might result in an array of impacts at the collective and individual levels, ranging in magnitude from trivial to transformational.” (Danziger 2004, 100). Mulgan et al. (2006) see it as crucially important for the success of social innovations that they are able to bring tangible results, that they can be implemented with low costs and that they are flexible enough to be transformed and adopted in different settings, and, finally, that they have the support of the elite groups in society. There is a wide agreement that the definite criterion of success is the efficiency of the innovation, that it brings good results. From this perspective the issue whether an innovation is new or not, does not seem so very important. Also, the question of elite support is far from self-evident: an innovation can have the support of the elite, but as long as it does not have active promoters at local level, the innovation may fail. In this regard the theory by Brunori on the dynamics of second order innovation from novelty to regimes is very important.
The core of the theory is the idea “that radical innovation may proceed as progressive embodiment of a new way of doing and thinking into higher structuration levels.” The “lowest level” is ‘novelties’ which are basically breaks in the routine. The first step in the process is the transformation (closure in Brunori’s terminology) of novelties into niches. In the process of development, niches consolidate and they start to modify their operational networks and “challenge dominant rules, actors, and artefacts by putting pressure on them. They are, therefore, incubators for radical innovation.” (Brunori et al. 2008). Niches turn into regimes, which are defined as “a mode of ordering, a system of rules that coordinate networks of actors and things” (ibid.). As examples of types of regimes one can mention
22
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
consumption regimes, technological regimes or socio-cultural regimes. In this vocabulary regimes are established patterns or norms of behaviour, and they are resistant to change.
landscapes Regimes
niches
novelties
Figure 2. The steps of second order innovation
Dietary “sub-regime”, which in Finland favoured fatty and salty food still in early 1970 causing a lot of cardio-vascular diseases, can be seen as an example of a consumption regime. It took decades for a social innovation of health, the low-fat diet, to break the “routine” of the former diet and to develop into a new and uncontested dietary regime. As Brunori et al. (2008) note: “Regimes, in fact, regard the deep structures of human behaviour, from consolidated convictions to daily routines to moral norms. A change of regime requires a strong motivation and a great deal of resources.” The highest levels of structuration are the socio-technical landscapes, which are situations and events beyond the reach of national policies: global climate change, north-south divides, and capitalist regulation (Brunori et al. 2008, 16). Brunori et al. argue that currently changes in socio-technical landscapes are important drivers for radical innovations. In conclusion then, we can say that new ideas as such are not innovations; they are just novelties, breaks in routines. Only when a novelty develops into a niche, does it become the basis for an innovation. Niches may then challenge existing regimes and give rise to a new alternative regime, which becomes dominant and operates within a certain landscape. Contradictions in landscapes are reasons for the need to break existing established patterns by finding new solutions. In this manner the arrow in figure 2 is actually two-sided, interactive.
23
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Relations between community and society
The strife between the “democracy” of the intimate community and the distant “bureaucratic dictatorship” of the society has inspired many notions in social innovation studies (see Moulaert et al. 2005, 1972). The society is depicted as something alien to life-world, outside of the horizon of common people. It is in the Habermasian sense an embodiment of the instrumental rationality of bureaucracy and big organizations. Life-world is, instead, a realm of informal relations and mutual understandings, where action is governed by practical rationality, not by the technical and instrumental rationality of the “system world”. (See Habermas 1987).
This tension was discussed already by Ferdinand Tönnies, Emilé Durkheim and by other Fathers of Sociology. It is one of the key questions of the modernization process what happens to human communities and social relations as societies grow larger and become more complex and socially differentiated? Community is intimate, caring, and it is a place for close social networks of mutual support, a safe haven against the hostile world. Society is formal, distant and run by rules and regulations, aiming at higher efficiency of the bureaucratically organized systems.
According to Moulaert et al. (2005) the dimensions of the tension are nowadays related to issues like the degree of integration of the communities into society, the inclusive or exclusive features of the community, the elitism of local communities and the new models of governance. Communalism as an idea and as a social movement has arisen in the last decades. This phenomenon is clearly linked to the tendencies of centralization on national and international level, seen for instance in the continuous consolidation of Europe into European Union and the consequent sense of loss of national or personal sovereignty to large, anonymous and bureaucratic powers. Such a sense of loss of power has created counter movements to protect and promote local communities, giving resources and, first of all, empowering local residents through new forms of governance.
Along with the promoting of local democracy, also new debates and initiatives emerged around the relationship between the local culture and global economy, concerning issues such as trust and social capital, social networks and glocalism, among others. A potential conflict is presupposed between the local level and central authorities, who are seen to be “detached” from the daily life of ordinary citizens and their needs. The push for a more decentralized 24
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
system of governance has been gaining ground ever since late 1970’s, and many of the core ideas about social innovations stem from that period. For example, in Finland and in Sweden the village movements and city district administrations were launched at that time. The aim of these movements was to motivate local residents to take part in the decision making over issues concerning their own village or district.
A related tension, also visible in much of the discussion about social innovation, is the tension between innovation and institutionalization. Most of the movements which promote local initiatives, innovation activities and democracy, tend to become institutionalized í they get organized, bureaucratized, professionalized and linked to central powers. This criticism is analogous to that of mass-society by Toffler (1980) and Zuboff & Maxmin (2004). Social innovations should bring about a new social organization, which not only rests on individual needs and preferences, but also gives voice to people in the peripheral areas and in the margins of society.
However, Moulaert et al. (2005) warn about the trap of localism, which seems to lurk around many accounts of social innovation. By this they mean the tendency to prioritize local level as the appropriate level of social change. They see three kinds of risks. The first is a belief that local level has enough power to influence the matters in society. This leads to the neglect of those mechanisms and interests which are in play at national and global levels and which undoubtedly weigh far more than the local level.
The second risk is existential localism, which claims that all needs should be satisfied at the local level. The third risk is the misunderstanding of EU subsidiary principle, which has been the reason for higher level authorities to shed some of their responsibilities to the lower level. This has for instance caused an increased burden for the municipalities over health-care, education and local infrastructure. Moulaert et al. argue that, to avoid romanticized localism, social innovations should be analysed in relation to norms, agency and institutional settings, and also “in articulation between different spatial levels, benefiting social progress at local level“ (italics in the original) (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1978). They argue that the structural features of the society produce exclusion and generate the need for new practices and policies and the need for using other means for enhancing inclusion of marginalized groups. They also emphasize that “the more grassroots, spontaneous, creative initiatives, those which develop against or seek to change established practices from below, are also the most
25
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
innovative, as the survey shows. This may be true, but it also raises the issue of the sustainability of innovation — i.e. the tension between innovation and the institutionalization (often under the wings of the state) of changes” (ibid., 1972). Thus the role of the external actors and the social environment cannot be neglected. New institutionalism recognizes the importance of ideas in social life more than alternative perspectives.
Methodological implications
The theory of institutional isomorphism by DiMaggio and Powell (1983; 2005) is useful to identify the ways in which different institutional mechanisms are shaping social innovations at community organization level. Three types of institutional isomorphism are explained as follows (DiMaggio & Powell 2005, 170):
1. Coercive isomorphism stems from political influence and the problem of legitimacy. Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressures exerted by other organizations upon which they are dependent.
2. Mimetic isomorphism results from the standard responses to uncertainty. Uncertainty is the force encouraging the imitation.
3. Normative isomorphism is associated with professionalization.
Leiter (2008) compared organizational structures of non-profit organizations in Australia and the United States and found existing patterns of isomorphism. Leiter found that global cultural expectations do operate to shape the non-profit sectors in the two countries in a similar way:
“These expectations lead to common understandings of how non-profits look and behave, for example, what functions should be executed in distinct departments, how many levels of hierarchy to have, and how formalized policies and procedures should be. These expectations may reflect both experiences with what works to make non-profits more effective and efficient and what legitimates non-profits to secure their survival and their privileges.” (Leiter 2008, 88).
According to Andersen (2008, 55), “the inherited stock of knowledge and social capital embedded in institutions and organizations frame the actors’ conceptions of what changes are desired and which options are available”. As Andersen argues (2008, 57), problem-solving 26
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
behaviour is path-dependent in the sense that it is embedded in organizational and institutional contexts, i.e. values, knowledge and social capital, which shapes the handling of actors in day-to-day situations. Thus, “path-dependent behaviour constrains the ability to vary” (Andersen 2008, 55). Path-dependent behaviour is related to normative isomorphism. According to Leiter (2008, 88), “non-profits are increasingly professionalizing and relying on consultants all over the world, but they did not start to avail themselves of experts simultaneously and the process is developing at different rates in different places; so too is normative isomorphism”.
Practices of social innovation and the role of social capital
We analyse social innovations in local communities with qualitative methods, analysing and comparing single rural development projects as cases. Good practice is a useful concept in this connection. For Moulaert et al. (2005) innovative behaviour is not something like ‘optimal’ behaviour. For them best practices represent a normative concept, without any real meaning for actual socially innovative strategies. What counts for a social innovation is ‘good practice’, i.e. a practice that has shown some contribution to social innovation in other environments, í or ‘good formulae’ that is expected to serve as a workable social innovation in the future in another time and place (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1978). This implies that social innovation does not need to be something completely new, but something that has proved to produce the desired positive results. It also implies that not all imitation is a sign of mimetic isomorphism. In some cases and in appropriate conditions imitation is a very successful strategy, because it makes it possible to avoid the mistakes of the forerunners. At the same time, however, it emphasizes the importance of taking into account contextual factors, traditions, skills and resources. Another point to take into account is those actors who are involved in the process of social innovation development. The role of different actors is depicted in the figure 3.
27
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Governmental / Administrative level
Information, control
Financial support
Generation, implementation Interest and development of social Financial innovation Customer level
Generation
Coordination
External Consultancy Local community level Firms
Figure 3. The interplay of different actors in the implementation and development of social innovation
The social innovations result, as argued, from the need to change social relations, institutions and social forces which produce and maintain concrete social problems, such as social exclusion, unemployment, outmigration, lacking social services and others. The aim of social innovation can be balancing unjust distribution of power or opening new opportunities in education, decision making and social life in general. Moulaert et al. also acknowledge the value of traditions: for them a social innovation can be the restoration of old practices if they produce better results. Mulgan et al. underline social justice and empowerment as the basic driving forces in social innovations, “social innovations that are giving the relatively poor and powerless more control over their own lives and advancing social justice” (Mulgan et al. 2006, 9). It is essential to emphasize that the role of social innovations in the community is two-fold: social innovations are shaped by the social system (legal framework, actors involved in innovation development, etc.) and at the same time social innovations are influencing the social system, as they are aiming to change some aspects of it (see figure 4).
28
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
… is shaping
Characters of social social innovation system … is influencing
Figure 4. Interrelation between social system and social innovation
Social capital and social innovations
As we noted earlier (p. 10), innovativeness entails cooperative networks for solving common problems, and it entails viable networks, which are instituted on relations between local people with entrenched roots in the area, where relations are based on trust (see Saraceno 1995). It is already commonplace to say that the concept of social capital is very fluid and generally vaguely defined. In general most theories of social capital define it as cooperative networks of individuals. For example Woolcock (1998) defines it as ”encompassing the norms and networks facilitating collective action for mutual benefit.” This definition supposes that social capital exists if there is consensus over the social norms and if there are social networks that make collective action possible. The essential question concerns trust, which is seen as the main ingredient of social capital. This is true, especially with Putnam’s understanding of the concept. For him trust is a critical component of social cohesion. Social capital can be seen as the property of a culture or as the property of an individual. The third alternative is that social capital is situational, not general.
If social capital is seen as property of the culture, one presupposes that everybody has similar predisposition to cooperate in all situations, and if one sees it as property of the individual, one presupposes that there are individual differences in the cooperativeness of people. In the third case, if one sees social capital as a situational matter, then cooperation is more likely in some situations than in others. Therefore the existence of social capital is dependent both on quantity and quality of interactions – that there are sufficient numbers of interactions of a particular quality. From this viewpoint social capital is the ”product of social interactions
29
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
with potential to contribute to the social, civic or economic well-being of a community-of- common purpose.” (Falk & Kilpatrick 2000, 103).
Social interactions take place in networks, and according to Putnam (2000) even a poorly connected individual can benefit from a well-connected community. Social capital appears or operates in different types of networks. Bridging social capital (or inclusive) encompasses people from different social groups. It is very important and useful for information diffusion and for the diffusion of social innovations (Putnam 2000). Linking social capital is understood as ties and networks within a hierarchy based on differences in social position or power (Healy, 2002). Healy argues that linking social capital may be viewed as an extension of bridging social capital involving networks and ties with individuals, groups or corporate actors represented in (a) public agencies, (b) schools, (c) business interests, (d) legal institutions and (e) religious/political groups. Measurement of linking social capital is likely to be a key concern for policy makers and other groups concerned about social inclusion, realization of human rights and reduction in poverty (Healy 2002).
Figure 5: Elements of Social capital (quoted from robertamsterdam.com 2007)
30
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Critical understanding of social capital
Siisiäinen (2004, 46) notes that the increase of the number of studies on social capital took place in a situation where “neo-modern” themes of community, social convergence and democratic values were on the rise. Triglia (2001) dates the growth of interest in social capital to the “post-fordist period”, i.e. when mass production was starting to give way to flexibility, team-working and quality production from the early 1980’s. As noted above, most theories that follow the Putnamian tradition see social capital to be cooperative networks of individuals and as consisting of three types of ingredients: reciprocity, norms and information. This means that there is social capital only if there is consensus over the social norms, and if there are social networks that make collective action possible. Putnam’s theory represents the “cultural school” of social capital theories, where civility and trust are in the centre when explaining the quality of the social capital (Triglia 2001). It means that the existence and the breadth of social networks is explained by the qualities of any particular culture – other cultures are more cooperative than others and therefore there are differences in the amount of social capital and in the degree of development. The problem here is, according to Triglia, that the studied phenomenon is explained by history: “social capital is in fact conceived as a contingent phenomenon, rooted in the historical process – a cultural feature of a region, family, school and associations” (Triglia 2001, 434). An example of this type of explanation is the theory about developmental problems of post-socialist societies. There, the explanation goes, the reasons for development problems are “deficiencies in the modern mind” or “learned helplessness”, which is seen in the lack of generalized trust and in the existence of “anti-modern social networks”, promoting clientelism, corruption and other negative social phenomena. On this theoretical basis it is difficult to see any way out of the development problems in question.
Another way to analyse social capital and its relevance is to study the preconditions of its existence and the positive effects it may produce. The starting point here is the definition of social capital as being “a set of social relations, of which a single subject (for instance, an entrepreneur or a worker) or a collective subject (either private or public) can make use at any given moment.” (Triglia 2001, 430) This understanding of the concept emphasizes the non- collective nature of social capital – i.e. that the “amounts and qualities” of social capital vary between groups and individuals and that it is also situational in nature. Originally this kind of
31
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
definition was made by Bourdieu (1986), when he maintained that social capital is the “sum of those actual and potential resources that an individual or a group has on the basis that he/she has solid networks of more or less institutionalized nature, and (has) mutual relations of respect and acquaintance.”
This means that social capital is both situational and sectorally determined – it is the totality of those formal and informal network relations that individuals utilize in order to produce or distribute products or services (Rose 1999, 5, see also Blom 2007, 5).
In a nutshell then, in all definitions social capital resides in networks, which are based on trust. These networks mediate and form a channel for exchange of knowledge, and in this manner social capital functions as a precondition for (social) innovation. As Kenney and Patton (2003, 15) argue, “networks are particularly well suited in the exchange of commodities, such as knowledge, whose value is difficult to measure“. They take technical know-how as an example of the commodity which is very difficult to trade through markets and which is not easy to disseminate within a tight hierarchical organization. Know-how is an immaterial good, which can be distributed or exchanged only through personal connections and social networks. Before such an exchange can take place, the members in the network need to have trustful relations, which are based on past performance or reputation, and which go beyond kinship or family ties. Social networks can promote development and well-being of all members of a community, but they can also prevent economic activity by creating social closures, based on strong ties of kinship, ethnicity, class or gender, among others (Coleman and Portes). These closures can easily lead to “political capitalism” (Weber), where social and economic power is captured by corrupt politicians or/and criminal groups. The means to avoid such a situation are to be found in the existence of modernized politics, which are autonomous and independent from group specific interests. Only thus can there be the strengthening of the ability of the society to deliver the collective goods which are indispensable for the development at local level – i.e. infrastructure, public services, safety and legality. In a way of conclusion, one can argue that social innovation requires not only social capital in the form of social networks and trust, but even more it requires advanced institutional infrastructure to support and foster networks and trust – which is a precondition for the formation and functioning of social partnerships.
32
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social partnerships as a developmental block
Although the idea of social partnership emerged in 1980’s in urban context (Moseley 2003b), the idea of partnerships has afterwards become commonplace in regional (Scott 1995, 26) and rural development policy. Partnerships, in the development and implementation of local and regional policies, are a central feature of “the new rural paradigm”, and they are emphasised and advocated by agencies, such as EU (see e.g. 2008) and OECD (see e.g. 2006). In the following we focus on social partnerships in the context of rural development and try to explore this ambiguous concept.
Defining social partnerships As a concept partnership is an ambiguous one. The term is politically charged and covers greatly differing concepts and practices. A social partnership can be old or new, official or unofficial, perpetuating or creative. In terms of organisation a partnership can be a project, an association or a co-operative (McQuaid 2000, 10; in Finland: Hyyryläinen & Rannikko 2000; Hyyryläinen & Luostarinen 1997; Luostarinen & Hyyryläinen 2000; Mustakangas et al. 2003).
Social partnerships have raised wide interest and there is a considerable literature on the topic3. The academic literature on social partnership is, however, relatively disjointed. Social partnerships have been discussed in several contexts, such as welfare services (e.g. Rantanen & Laanterä & Kangaspunta 2007), education (e.g. Alasuutari 2007), and buyer–supplier relations (e.g. Duffy 2008).
Initially the concept “social partnership” comes from the sphere of labour relations. In this sphere the concept refers to the context of consultations between the ‘social partners’: government, employers, employees and union representatives (Flynn 1999). In this context, social partnership has been defined for example to mean “employers and unions co-operating to improve working conditions and to give employees a greater say in how their company is run” (Social partnership 1998). The foundations for the social partnership model in labour relations can be found from the aims of the European Works Councils Directive. Two of its key aims are:
3 See e.g. Geddes 1998; Westholm et al. 1999; Osborne 2000; Moseley 2003b. 33
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
x to foster and improve workers’ fundamental social rights to information, consultation and participation; and x to promote dialogue between management and labour to harmonise concentrations, cross-border mergers, takeovers and joint ventures directed towards the trans- nationalisation of undertakings (EWCD 1994).
Social partnership model is directed towards organisational restructuring and flexibility; it means a shift of the employees’ attitudes and demands towards job security and quality of working conditions. An important aspect of partnership relations is ‘social dialogue’. Social dialogue plays a vital role in both developing and maintaining statutory forms of employee participation. According to the social partnership model, in a business enterprise, participants have both an economic and a social function.
Later on this concept started to be used in different ways. Social partnerships were defined as joint practices of authorities and business with a view to solve social and economic problems. These practices are usually called Public-Private Projects or Public-Private Partnership (PPP or P3). “PPPs are arrangements between government and private sector entities for the purpose of providing public infrastructure, common facilities and related services. Such partnership is characterized by the sharing of investments, risks, responsibilities and reward between the partners.” (Public-Private Partnership 1999). The Public-Private Partnerships are often considered the core of social partnerships. However, involvement of the third sector, i.e. the voluntary sector, is nowadays also considered crucial. PPP is a new approach, for example, to public service delivery. It has its foundation in a co-planning approach, where partners from the public sector and the social economy sector share equal responsibility for service design to maximise outcomes for service users.
The first way of using the social partnership concept is a narrow one. It refers to defined goals (improving working conditions at the enterprises) and it is directed to a target group (employees or their unions). The latter one is wider; it refers to a whole community and has a wide range of goals. The concept is thus directed to solving the actual problems of a community. OECD defines social partnerships as “systems of formalized cooperation, grounded in legally binding arrangements or in formal undertakings, cooperative working relationships and mutually adopted plans among a number of institutions” (OECD 1990). Different authors give slightly different definitions for social partnerships, but almost all 34
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
definitions have three common points: actors from different sectors, common goals, and shared resources.
Social partnerships as a process, a structure, a way of action
Mustakangas et al. (2003) have distinguished three perspectives on partnerships. Social partnerships can be viewed as a way of action, as a process or as a structure. In addition, social partnerships have been viewed as a site of action (see e.g. Seddon et al. 2004).
Partnership as a process
When social partnership (SP) is viewed as a process, the focus is on the formation of partnerships and their development, strategic planning, networking and local decision- making. James (2002, 19) defines partnership “as a process involving an inter-organisational arrangement that mobilizes a coalition of interests around shared objectives and a common agenda as a means to respond to a shared issue or to realize specific outcomes”. Social partnership is a process of integration of actors across different sectors: their joint working, pooling of resources, integrating ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ interests, experimentation and innovation. Social partnerships can thus be viewed as target-oriented cooperation between differing actors. In rural development context, the target is to gain some goals that serve common interest in rural areas.
In the “lifespan analysis” of social partnerships the focus is on the stages of development. The lifespan consists of four basic partnership stages: initiation, establishment and assertion, implementation, and evaluation, conclusion or continuation (see e.g. Lowndes & Skelcher 1998; Luostarinen & Hyyryläinen 2000; Moseley 2003a).
The initiation stage includes everything that happens before the partnership is officially organised, for example, identification of the key issues to be addressed and listing of the necessary resources. Also the funding plan of the partnership is discussed. In the second stage, social partnership becomes concrete when decisions about the organisation and the action plan of the partnership are made. The aims that were identified in the first stage are now connected with the projects to be pursued. The following implementation stage concerns those projects and actions, which the partners execute. Finally, the results of partnership are evaluated and the conclusion is made to end or to continue the partnership. This stage also
35
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
includes the reporting to the financiers. (E.g. Lowndes & Skelcher 1998; Luostarinen & Hyyryläinen 2000; Moseley 2003a; see also Seddon et al. 2004).
Partnership as a structure
When social partnership is viewed as a structure, the focus is on the partners (diversity, skills, local knowledge or leading partners), on the organizations (complexity, delegation, management/staff competence, etc.), and on the organisational and institutional arrangements of the state and the non-state actors. From this perspective, the focus is on the question “who participates in social partnerships”.
Geddes (2006, 81) notes that the concept of membership in partnership is complex and open to different interpretations. Some partnerships distinguish between an inner core (for instance, the board) and a wider membership. For some the wider membership is fixed, for others it is open to all. Membership is often built on a ‘three-sector’ basis: local public bodies, business and the voluntary and community sectors.
Social partnerships can be formed at different levels. Mustakangas et al. (2003, 52) distinguish six levels of partnerships: village, municipal, regional, county, national and international. The lower the level, the more operational the partnership usually is. On national and international levels, partnerships tend to be more administrative. Moseley (2003b, 5) remarks that besides the horizontal contacts (between the sectors), partnerships also have a vertical dimension; they connect different levels.
Several authors (see e.g. Moseley 2003a; Geddes 2006) notice that partnerships are often dominated by the public sector, especially by the local authorities, and local and regional agencies of central government. Genuine local community involvement is frequently weak and community and private sector representatives are often unclear about their roles. In those cases, it is very important to increase the activity of the private and third sectors in order to create social partnerships where local authority is only one voice among the many.
Partnership as a site of action
Instead of a structure, social partnerships can be viewed as a space or a site of action, “in which people and organisations from some combination of public, business, and civil constituencies come together in order to engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial, innovative 36
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
relationships to address common societal aims through combining their resources and competencies” (Seddon et al. 2004). From this perspective, social partnership is a space within which new institutional alliances can be formed to endorse, resist, or turn the impact of politics in community relations. In this respect, social partnerships can be understood as a ‘third space’ where new (and old) identities can be (re)mobilized in nascent political action (Seddon et.al 2004).
Social partnerships can be seen as a local umbrella institution, under which the highly fragmented jungle of organisations and institutions are joined up. Partnerships represent an attempt to open up local governance to a wider range of local interests and to better reflect local priorities and needs (Geddes 2006, 81).
The growth of partnerships working in the countryside has not produced any new and homogenous institutions – ‘the partnership’ – but rather diverse and complicated menagerie of partnership organisations with different foci, different scales of operation, varying duration and histories and different patterns of sectors’ representation and funding (Moseley 2003a). So, even if the partnerships are seen as a site of action and have common characteristics (like representatives of different sectors, common goals, shared resources, stages of development), it is not a unified mechanism.
However, most social partnerships made rather more of their “soft outputs” such as “mobilising community”, “raising awareness and understanding” and “raising the area’s profile”, than they did of “hard outputs” such as “business start-ups” or “jobs created” (Moseley 2003a, 124).
In conclusion then, we may argue that irrespective of the emphasis of the key feature (structure, process or space) the main elements in the understanding of social partnership are common goals and traditions, compounded skills and resources. This means that the aspects are not mutually exclusive, but a way to emphasise the versatile nature of social partnerships.
Changing partnership relations
The shift from a single sovereign authority to the multiplicity of actors specific to each policy area was described by Jessop (1998, 29) as “heterarchy” (or self-organisation). Such heterarchy consists of the “self-organized steering of multiple agencies, institutions, and
37
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
systems which are operationally autonomous from one another yet structurally coupled due to their mutual interdependence”.
The blanket terms “public” and “private” are likewise unenlightening, because both of them are heterogeneous. Each public actor is working in the sphere of its own responsibility and competence. The local government, which earlier was the main responsible actor for local development and service delivery, has been transformed and it is only one among many actors. Nowadays local governments have adopted “facilitating” and “managing” roles.
Private sector, for its part, is not a homogeneous actor either. Jones and Bird (2000) give several examples of mixed motives of business participation in social partnerships: company’s strategy of “good citizenship”, companies which claim non-profit, charitable status – i.e. the potential surplus is delivered to trustees who use it for charitable purpose or companies provide contract-based services (“contract culture”).
Geddes (2006, 83) notices that the rise of the shareholder model of business is closely associated with neo-liberalism. This means that many firms reject the kind of “stakeholder” perspective, which would be most consistent with the ideology of the SP. Instead, they tend to participate either opportunistically or in the limited terms of corporate social responsibility. Besides, relatively few important local businesses have local roots, and this factor strongly affects most of local economies.
As to the voluntary sector, many voluntary organizations are in a state of transition. In many countries this sector has an increasing role in service delivery. Some voluntary organizations start to supply care services in peripheral regions and rural areas. Some others function like a public sector organization rather than representing specific social interests and issues (Geddes 2006, 83).
In the case of community sector, communitarian ideology represents a potentially cohesive local community. However, this view denies the reality of the social fragmentation as well as the individualism and consumerism. Segmented identities and divisions of ethnic, sexual or other lines now characterize many local communities (Geddes 2006, 84).
38
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Governance as a solution to “democracy deficit”?
Contemporary literature defines different levels of governance: global, European, and local. For our research the last one is the most important level.
UNDP4 defines local governance as follows:
“Local governance comprises of a set of institutions, mechanisms and processes through which citizens and their groups can articulate their interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations at the local level. It requires partnership between local governmental institutions, civil society organizations and private sector for participatory, transparent, accountable and equitable service delivery and local development. It necessitates empowering local governments with authority and resources and building their capacity to function as participatory institutions that are responsive and accountable to the concerns and needs of all citizens. At the same time, it is concerned with strengthening of grass roots democracy and empowering citizens, communities and their organizations such as CBOs and NGOs to participate as equal partners in local governance and local development process”.
Partnerships represent an attempt to open up local governance to a wider range of local interests and to a better reflection of local priorities and needs. ‘Governance’ is now fashionable, and the shift from government to a broader, more flexible system of governance is widely discussed. In much of the public and political debate, governance refers to sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutions, corporate interests, civil society and transnational organisations. What previously were indisputably roles of government are now increasingly seen as more common, generic, societal problems which can be resolved either by political institutions or by other actors (Pierre 2000, 4). Rhodes (1996, 652–653) underlines that the current use does not treat governance as a synonym of government. Governance signifies a change in the meaning of government, referring to a new
4 United Nations Development Programme. 39
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new methods by which society is governed.
Governance is multidimensional phenomenon where governmental and non-governmental organisations work together (Stoker 1997) including not only the public and private sectors but also communities and voluntary groups. According to Foucault (1991), in the art of government the objective is to establish continuity, in both upward and downward directions. The dilemma is that in most cases no single actor, public or private, has the knowledge or the capacity to tackle problems effectively. The government is one of the actors in governance. Goodwin (1998) notes that “Interaction among actors is very important, because each actor brings specific sets of skills and resources into partnership“.
There are different uses of the term governance. Hirst (2000, 14–19) defined five of them: good governance, governance in the field of international institutions and regimes, corporate governance, governance as the new public management, and governance which refers to the new practices of coordinating activities through networks and partnership. Rhodes (2000, 55– 63) added, furthermore, two additional meanings: governance as new political economy and governance as networks. The last point differs from Hirst, while Rhodes connects networks alternatively to power dependency or to rational choice.
Much of the governance and new institutionalism literature, especially those dealing with local governance, tend to avoid any strong associations between the shift to governance and a change in specific policy or political content í like Hirst’s last usage of governance. Stoker’s formulation of governance is in terms of institutions and institutional relationships and he makes no assumption that governance implies any specific policy content. He argues that “its value is as an organizing framework. The value of the governance perspective rests in its capacity to provide a framework for understanding changing process of governing” (Stoker 1998, 18). For Rosenau (2000, 171) governance is conceived as a system of rule, as the purposive activities of any collectivity that sustain mechanisms designed to insure its safety, prosperity, coherence, stability, and continuance.
Governance and the need for de-regulation
In contrast to these contributions, another part of literature interprets governance as closely associated with a particular political context, namely neo-liberalism. Jessop (2002, 463–466)
40
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
connects governance to four ‘neos’: neo-liberalism, neo-corporativism, neo-statism, and neo- communitarianism. For example Geddes argues that the shift from government to governance can be seen as an integral element of neo-liberalism (Geddes 2006, 79). Governance brings greater decentralisation of decision-making, deregulation and creation of an ‘enabling role’ of local authorities. Under the influence of neo-liberalism, local government has shifted from a relatively basic system of administration to new styles of public management and partnership arrangements. Now the focus is on cost-effective service delivery, as a result of corporate planning and of optimizing human and financial resources.
The governance perspective not only recognizes increased complexity in the systems of government, but also discerns a shift in responsibility, a stepping back of the state and a concern to push responsibilities onto the private and voluntary sectors and, more broadly, to the citizens. A concern over “active” citizenship links governance to wider debates about communitarianism and “family” values (Stoker 1998, 21). The way of thinking is that strengthening community will provide an answer to many societal problems (Day 2006, 203– 209). O’Toole and Burdess (2004) notice that policy instruments for rural areas are infused with a new sense of ‘community’. An important concept here is ‘community governance’ in which the question of wider local participation is discussed. Community governance implies that power should be exercised as close as possible to citizens and local communities. This is because the most useful learning takes place at grass-roots level and social partnership encourages local people and organisations to play a greater role e.g. in the provision of services (O’Toole & Burdess 2004). Partnership becomes a key component of the process of governance (Jones & Little 2000).
Networks in the shift from exogenous to endogenous and neo-endogenous rural development
The shift from government to governance has, in part, also facilitated the shift from top-down into bottom-up rural development (Furmankiewicz & Thompson & Zielinska 2010). For a long time rural development was based on strong state structures or exogenous development. In the exogenous approach, new industries and their associated technologies, skills and patterns of working were imported into rural areas in order to overcome problems of marginality and backwardness. The aim of the exogenous development was to integrate rural areas into the national and international economy (Murdoch 2000, 412). However, this
41
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
approach has a number of weaknesses, e.g. over-reliance on state support, a dependence on large-scale firms often operating in single-sectors and a consequent marginalisation of small- scale, local entrepreneurs (Day & Hedger 1990; Lowe et al. 1998). This state-centred or “exogenous” development was challenged in 1970’s by the idea of “endogenous” development. Endogenous model emphasises locality: local actors, local resources and local initiatives. (Murdoch 2000; Terluin 2003). In the endogenous approach local actors are encouraged to take responsibility for the design and execution of development strategies.
However, also the endogenous approach has a number of weaknesses; e.g. the domination of powerful actors, the marginalisation of others and local passivity. Besides, this approach concentrates on the socio-economic development regardless of outside influences, such as globalisation and foreign trade or any other external actors (Murdoch 2000; Lowe et al. 1998; Ward et al. 2005). Both exogenous and endogenous models of development are more ideal types than real existing cases, since rural areas cannot rely solely on exogenous or on endogenous development. In practice development strategies will include both exogenous and endogenous forces. This is the notion of the neo-endogenous approach, which has focused on the interactions between local arenas and their wider political, institutional, trading and natural environments, and on the question of how these interactions are mediated (Ward et al. 2005, 5). According to Ray (2006, 286) a consensus exists that neo-endogenous development is best animated and sustained by partnerships.
In Western Europe partnerships have been closely connected with the European Union’s LEADER programmes (Furmankiewicz et al. 2010). In 1991 European Union launched the LEADER programme to support and to finance innovative rural development projects. Among other essential elements of the bottom-up approach to rural development, the LEADER programme emphasises public-private-voluntary sector partnerships (Scott 2004). The central actors of the LEADER programme are Local Action Groups (LAGs). They are rural development associations (or cooperatives) that gather together local people, local associations, local enterprises and local government. The LAGs prepare a development plan for their region and fund local development projects to implement that plan.
42
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 1. Models of rural development
Exogenous development Endogenous development
Key principle Economies of scale and Harnessing local (natural, concentration human and cultural) resources for sustainable development
Dynamic force Urban growth poles (drivers Local initiative and exogenous to rural areas) enterprise
Functions of rural areas Food and primary products Diverse service economies for expanding urban economics
Major rural development Low productivity and Limited capacity of areas/ problems peripherality groups to participate in economic activity
Focus on rural development Agricultural modernisation; Capacity-building (skills, encourage labour and capital institutions, infrastructure); mobility overcoming exclusion
Source: Ward et al. 2005, 4.
The neo-endogenous approach emphasises networks between local and external forces (Terluin 2003). Networks are seen as a new institutional form directed to a more complex development than which has been traditionally evident in state-centred or market-led models (exo- vs. endogenous). As Castells (1996) among others has remarked, the rise of the network society has led to an emergence of new political, economic and social networks. Policy networks and power relations are seen as important mechanisms for the reformulation and delivery of policies. ‘Old-style’ government, with top-down and hierarchical decision- making, is deemed to be much less effective than governing via ‘alliances’, ‘partnerships’ and other collaborative forms (Rhodes 1997). Studies in economics highlight interdependences between economic agents and supporting institutions. Such interdependences and other linkages are assumed to provide good contexts for effective economic action and development (Amin 1999). Social network is a complex concept but in
43
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
a wide sense the concept of network includes also the concept of partnership (Mustakangas et al. 2003, 49)5.
As a chart the key features of neo-endogenous development can be presented as follows:
Figure 6: Key features of neo-endogenous development. Source: Oksa 2004.
How to make a partnership successful?
The empirical study on factors that influence the effectiveness of social partnerships has pointed out that the effectiveness of partnership depends on three linked processes: cross- sectoral collaboration, coordinated institutional and organizational change, and coordinated multi-level processes (Geddes 2006, 88–92). Some studies emphasise the importance of “good climate or atmosphere”6. Yet, it is not always clear what “good atmosphere” means. Duffy (2008) connects “atmosphere” with the state of cooperation or conflict in a relationship. Effectiveness of a partnership at the local level depends on the practices at regional and national level of government. Usually partnerships can be seen as multi-level
5 However, it should be noted that not all networks cross sector boundaries and not all networks are based on cooperation. 6 See e.g. Geddes 1998; Hyyryläinen & Kangaspunta 1999; Luostarinen & Hyyryläinen 2000; Moseley 2003b. 44
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
rather than specifically local, but in which the vertical elements drives the local, horizontal actions (ibid, 92).
Jon Pierre (2000, 242–246) expresses several important conclusions about the state and its place in the governance perspective in partnership relations. The first one is concerned with the relaxation of regulatory steering within the state on the one hand, and the emerging forms of public-private exchange on the other. These processes lead to the processes of decentralization and deregulation - distributing responsibility from a central point to several local points/actors. The second one is about the growing extent of the state’s ability to muster public and private resources and to wield public and private organizational capabilities towards common objectives. Both of these features play an important role in the development of partnerships and their effectiveness.
The levels of partnership
The factors contributing to the effectiveness of a partnership can be discussed on three levels: micro (individual), meso (organisational) and macro (national and international). On micro- and meso-level, the state of cooperation obviously has an effect on the success of the partnership. The macro level is important for the formation and for the effectiveness of partnership relations at all levels. On one hand, macro level supplies institutional framework for any activity of local partnerships and therefore acts inside multi-level partnerships. On the other hand, partnerships at national and international levels are directed on the solving of nationwide and global problems. Studies on social partnership commonly focus on meso level, on the cooperation between organisations and institutions. Some studies, however, have also discussed the role and impact partners as individuals have on the effectiveness and successfulness of partnerships.
Social partnership at micro level is interaction and cooperation between individual actors. Each partner is functioning as an agent, capable of affecting the partnerships. The functionality and effectiveness of a partnership is thus a product of the participating individuals. Hyyryläinen and Kangaspunta (1999, 74) for example emphasise that in the end, partnerships are founded on cooperation between individuals; even when these individuals represent organisations or institutions. Studies on social partnership have introduced a
45
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
number of factors that are relevant for the effectiveness of a partnership. Among them are trust, commitment, roles and attitudes.
First of all, since trust creates and improves cooperation, effective partnership calls for trust (see e.g. Moseley 2003). Trust is a multiform concept and according to Mishra (1996, 265), four dimensions or components of trust can be identified; competence, openness and honesty, impartiality, and reliability. In partnerships, trust can be based on the perceived competence of the individual partners, on openness and honesty of the mutual communication, on the belief that the other partners are not trying to benefit at the expense of each other and on the belief that partners will keep their promises.
Bstieler & Hemmert (2008) have noted that the quality of communication and the perception of fairness have a positive effect on trust development in partnerships. The quality of communication means timely, accurate, adequate and complete information exchange between the partners (Bstieler & Hemmert 2008). The communication quality is comparable to Mishra’s component of openness and honesty. Fairness is a perception of how well an individual partner feels he/she is treated in the partnership and of how fair the distribution of benefits and burdens in proportion to the investments is (Bstieler & Hemmert 2008). The fairness partly relates to Mishra’s component of impartiality; the individual partner needs to believe that the other partners do not have hidden agendas.
Secondly, commitment of individual partners fosters effective and successful partnership. According to Hyyryläinen and Kangaspunta (1999, 25–27; 83) partnerships require multi- subjectivity and they state that partnership projects require individual actors who recognize the project as their own and take responsibility for it. The intense commitment and several committed partners are features of a functional partnership and the role of these committed and enthusiastic “key actors” is often emphasised.
Thirdly, clear role differentiation is very important for successful partnership, because role conflict is the central conflict social partnerships are facing on micro level (Seddon et al. 2004). Role conflict refers to a situation where an individual faces contradictory expectations.
46
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In addition, irresolute roles and negative attitudes can also impede interaction and cooperation7.
On the meso level, social partnership means above all cooperation between organisations and institutions. Whereas on micro level, partners are viewed as independent agents, in the meso level, individual partners are viewed as actors steered by the institutions and organisations they represent. Meso level concerns inter-organisational relations and the interaction between organisations and institutions. Viewed from organisational level, several features affect the success of social partnerships; among them are trust, commitment and organisational culture.
Firstly, trust can also be viewed from an organisational level, besides the individual level. According to Mishra (1996, 265), one component of trust is impartiality which can be seen as a lack of interest conflicts. Seddon et al. (2004) state that the most important conflict, which partnerships face on meso-level is a conflict of interests. Social partnerships, and the projects they execute, are often justified on the ground that they operate for ‘the common good’. However, ‘the common good’ is not an unambiguous concept. Different groups have different interests and these interests are not always compatible (see e.g. Geoghegan & Powell 2006). Swyngedouw (2005) states that it is crucial to analyse who the participants are in the partnerships, and whose interests are paraded. Empirical studies have revealed that the key partners are usually representatives of the local government (e.g. municipalities) and that the private sector is often poorly represented (e.g. Moseley 2003b).
On the other hand, it is not only the equality of outputs that counts – also the equality of inputs is important for well-functioning cooperation. Trust is endangered if partners perceive an inequality between the inputs and outputs which organisations invest and receive. ‘Equality’ is like ‘the common good’ in the sense that it is not an unambiguous concept. The question whether all partners are really equally responsible for the inputs, decisions and actions, is far from self-evident. For example Alasuutari (2007) has discussed the dilemma of equality and expertise in partnerships in the education context. Equality will not be attained if expertise and societal status are taken into consideration and opinions of an expert count for more than the opinions of a layperson. But will equality truly take place if an expert and a layperson are equally responsible for the decisions made and for the action taken? These questions are relevant for example when private business and third sector are involved in
7 See e.g. Hyyryläinen & Luostarinen 1997; Geddes 1998; Mustakangas et al. 2003. 47
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
political decision making together with the local government (Alasuutari 2007, see also Moseley 2003a, 122–123).
Commitment is an essential element and feature of an organisation or institution in cooperative relationships. Duffy (2008) defines organisations’ commitment as expectations of continuity and willingness to invest capital and effort into a partnership. Finally, organisational culture can have an impact on the effectiveness and success of a social partnership. Organisational culture can be generally understood as an idea of ‘the way we do things in this organization’. Seddon et al. (2004) note that individual partners come from different organizations and because of that have different ways of working and different needs. Some organisations or institutions may for example lack the tradition of collaboration (see e.g. Geddes 1998; Hyyryläinen & Kangaspunta 1999).
As a conclusion we can note that there are plenty of different ways to understand social partnership. Some see it as a process, while others describe it as a site of action; for one it is a system, based on formal cooperation, for another informal relations play a major role. Anyhow, for most of them social partnership has three main common features: actors come from different sectors, they have common goals, and they have shared resources. The effectiveness of partnerships depends on several aspects. Coordinated institutional and organizational changes are needed. International, national and sub-national levels create an institutional framework in which partnerships are working. The second important aspect is the coordinated work of partners from different levels, i.e. multi-level partnership. The last one is cross-sectorial collaboration. Therefore, while analysing empirical data it is important to take a look at the institutional framework, in which the partnerships are created, as well as at the cross-sectorial and multi-level structures of partnerships.
Research methods and data
Expert interviews as a research method
Expert interviews are considered a standard method of qualitative approach in divergent fields of political and social sciences. The expert interview is a specific form of semi-structured interview (Meuser and Nagel 2002). It focuses on expertise in a certain field of activity. According to Belting (2008), the expert is a person who has a high degree of skill in and knowledge of a certain domain, field or industry due to long-time experience. An 48
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
expert has status, power to act and decision-making opportunities based on these skills and knowledge. Expert knowledge does not only consist of systematized and reflexively accessible specialist knowledge, but it has the character of practical knowledge (Bonger & Menz 2002, 46). The main objective of expert interviews in this project was to map the social and economic problems, as well as to map the rural development projects/programmes, and to make a list of potential cases for further study. In addition, the concepts social innovation and social partnership were discussed. Expert interviews represented the first step in the data collection process and they were conducted during June-October 2007 in all countries (see appendix 1).
Case study as a research method
According to Yin (1994, 23) case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon with its real-life context. The case study is especially valuable when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident, and when multiple sources of evidence are used. The case study method includes several sub- methods, such as interviews, observations, documents and record analysis, statistics, etc. The methods of research draw on both quantitative and qualitative data, based on triangulation, which in general means combining different methodologies to study the same phenomena and applying various kinds of data.
In comparison with other methods the case study method has a range of advantages. Firstly, it has a “close-up” view. The insights of close-up study are especially valuable in periods of uncertainty and institutional instability (Hann 2002, 7). Secondly, case studies are flexible. Instead of verifying or falsifying hypotheses, a case study can introduce new and unexpected results during its course, and lead research to take new directions (Shuttleworth 2008). Thirdly, if statistical methods answer question “how many”, and give a general info about distribution of different reasons (why they participate or do not participate), the case study method can give more detailed information about the causes for reasons – i.e. give causal explanations. Finally, this method allows comparison of same phenomenon (innovation development, formation of partnership relations) under different local circumstances (local particularities, specific historical, cultural, etc. factors) that may or may not affect the way things develop. Besides, the specificity of cases has also allowed analyzing how, in a situation of limited resources, communities involve all possible channels of rendering support 49
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
to local development. Selected cases can be considered a platform for the observation of different models of social interactions.
Albeit having certain advantages, the case study method has also its limitations. The main concern is that it provides little basis for generalization (Yin 1994, 10). It is not possible to generalize obtained results to the whole country which the selected case represents. Anyway, if repeated case studies provide similar sort of information, it is possible to make limited generalizations based on saturation effects.
In this project the case study method was chosen, because the phenomenon under study is not readily distinguishable from its context; complex interaction between the phenomenon (formation of partnership relation and innovation development) and its context abound. The case study method helps us to define the relevant actors or groups of actors and the interaction between them; to understand what is happening and why. Case study represents the second and the most important stage in the research process. Case studies were done in two phases, during late 2007 and late 2008–early 2009.
Focus group as a research method
Focus group is a research method where the data is collected through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher (Morgan 1996). Focus groups appeared in academic research and in social sciences in the 1980’s. Previously it was mainly utilized in marketing studies and by survey researchers who have for long utilized focus groups in the development of questionnaires. Nowadays focus group is a popular research technique e.g. within applied psychology and health psychology (Morgan 1996; Millward 2000; Valtonen 2005).
An important distinction needs to be made between group interviews and focus groups. In group interviews the interplay happens separately between the interviewer and each participant. Group interview in general means several individual interviews at once. In focus group the interviewer aims at evoking conversation between the participants. A conversation forces participants both to query each other and to explain themselves to each other, which means that a focus group is more than the sum of separate individual interviews (Morgan 1996; Valtonen 2005).
50
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Valtonen (2005) introduces four possible goals for a focus group study. First of all the aim of a focus group study can be the exploitation of group creativity. The goal can thus be the creation of new ideas. Secondly focus group study can intend to get closer to participants’ understandings and perspectives on certain issues. Thirdly focus group study can be utilized in studying group processes and fourthly focus group study can aim at the empowerment of otherwise marginalised people by giving them a voice.
Focus groups can thus be used in order to study either the speech content or the interaction processes within the group. Usually one of these perspectives is selected although from a social psychological perspective, the focus group is always an exercise in group dynamics and the speech content should also be understood within the context of group interaction (Millward 2000). In addition, focus groups can be utilized either in an essentialist or a constructionist framework (Wilkinson 2003). The essentialist framework refers to research that focuses on peoples’ understandings, opinions or views proposing that what a person says in a focus group is what he or she actually thinks and feels about the given subject. The constructionist framework, on the other hand, is interested in the process of opinion expression without an assumption that expressed opinions reflect genuine opinions or views of the participants.
In this study we concentrate on the content of speech – not on the interaction process. In addition, speech is examined in an essentialist framework. The main object of the study is to find out whether social partnerships and social innovations can really mitigate problems in the studied areas. The goal was to collect different actors’ views on local rural development by canvassing local actors’ opinions on key problems, on the ways how to deal with the problems and their opinions on the actors who could be potentially involved in or are responsible for solving the problems. Focus group study was the final stage in the data gathering process and it was realized during the spring–autumn 2009 (see Appendix).
Secondary data
The term "secondary data" refers to data that has been collected earlier for a purpose other than the project at hand. Secondary data can be obtained from two different research strands: a) quantitative: census or electoral statistics and other related databases; besides, survey- based secondary data (data from previous research projects) can be used; b) qualitative: semi-
51
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
structured and structured interviews, focus groups transcripts, field notes, observation records, previous research reports, and different printed and electronic media products.
The major advantage of using secondary data is the possibility to economize financial and time resources. Because someone else has already collected the data, the researcher does not have to devote resources to this phase of research, and because the data is already collected and stored, the researcher does not have to spend as much time as when conducting primary research. An additional benefit is the breadth of available data. Finally, the data collection process is often informed by expertise and professionalism that may not be available to smaller research projects.
One major disadvantage to using secondary data is inherent in its nature: because the data was not collected to answer one’s specific research questions, particular information that one would like to have may not have been collected. Or it may not have been collected in the geographic region one wants to study, in the years one would have chosen, or on the specific population that is the focus of one’s interest. In any case, one can only work with the data that exists, not with what one wishes had been collected (Boslaugh 2007, 3-4).
Besides, the disadvantages of secondary data are related to the fact that their selection, quality and the methods of their collection are not under the control of the researcher, and that they are sometimes impossible to validate (Sorensen et al. 1996). In addition, the secondary data is likely to be less current than any data one collects oneself.
In this project secondary data is used to gain initial insight into the research problem at the preliminary stages of research to determine what is known already and what new data is required. Both qualitative and quantitative secondary data was used in this project (see below).
Comparative method
All research in social sciences involves the comparison of cases or variables which are similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. When used in international research settings, the method can be used in many ways. Allardt (1970, 78-86) presents two main types of research strategy within the comparative method: the strategy of maximal similarity and that of maximal differences.
52
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In this research the societies are very different, even if they all are industrialized European countries. In the three countries we studied, the societies have been formed in very different ways during their long history. At present, Russia is in the throes an unfinished transition from socialism to capitalism, Lithuania has a Soviet past and a present EU-membership, and Finland has benefited from its 50 years as a Nordic welfare state. Therefore, the institutional and other contextual factors are highly different in each of these countries. In such circumstances we use the comparative method to study a rural region in each country, choosing from local level development efforts, so called ‘projects’, which can be called social innovations and which are realized with the help of social partnership.
From the comparative point of view, in such a setting one will ask what kind of differences or similarities are to be found in these cases, and whether these differences and similarities can be explained by different contextual factors.
Data
At the first stage of the project available secondary data was analyzed. This consisted in results of research made previously by the members of this project8 and by other researchers, local statistical data, official documents (like legislation, programmes of regional development, the charter of the Credit Cooperative etc.).
During the next stage expert interviews were made: ten in Finland, five in Lithuania, and six in Russia. Among the experts there were representatives of State authorities (Ministries of Agriculture), representatives of political parties, representatives of different associations and local action groups and researchers involved in rural development. We selected the cases for the project on the basis of these expert interviews.
Case studies formed the following stage, in which qualitative data was collected using a number of informant-stakeholders of local development. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews with local people, with representatives of business (mainly sponsors), with the authorities of different levels (municipal, regional), with representatives of NGOs, as well as with other experts and actors on local level. This list of informants was
8 The research team members had made earlier separate studies in some villages in Nizhny Novgorod region in Russia and in some villages in Lithuania. 53
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
completed with snowball method. Altogether 48 interviews (including expert interviews) were conducted in Russia, 17 in Lithuania, and 24 in Finland.
During the last stage four focus group studies were conducted in each country: the first group consisted of members of local administration and rural development organizations, the second group consisted of local entrepreneurs and farmers, and the third group included local inhabitants. The mixed-group consisted of representatives from the previous three groups as well as of some new participants. Discussions were recorded and later on transcribed.
In addition, during the three years of the project we took photos from different stages of the research. Photos are stored in digital format. Selected photos are included in the research report.
54
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
3. Description of Case Locations
Inna Kopoteva, Miira Niska, Egle Butkeviciene
Introduction
Cases for this project were selected from three countries: Finland, Lithuania and Russia (see map 1). The research team has a long experience in studies of post-socialist countries. Previous research in Russia and Lithuania produced good background information for the current project; Finland was chosen to be part of the project, because it has long traditions in rural development activity and also because in Finland there have been efforts to create local social partnerships through LEADER-project activity.
Map 1: Project countries
Selected countries are different as far as political history and institutional development are concerned. Finland has been an EU-member for 15 years, while Lithuania is a new-EU member and Russia is outside of the EU. Finland has been using the LEADER method for local development for a long time. Lithuania has recently started to use the same method,
55
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
although the principles and the organization of the method differ between the countries. Russia is constructing its own systems and practices of rural development.
Administrative division of the selected countries has both differences and similarities. Finland is divided into 21 regions (maakunta), 68 sub-regions (seutukunta), and 342 municipalities (kunta). Lithuania has three-level division too: 10 counties (in Lithuanian – apskritis), 60 municipalities (savivaldybơ), and 546 elderships (seninjnija). Russia is divided into 83 regions (in Russian – sub’ekt federatsii) and has more than 24 000 municipalities divided in two levels. In rural areas there are municipal districts (municipal‘lnyi raion) and rural settlements (sel’skoe poselenie). Even though the names for the units are different and even though there are different amount of administrative levels, the three countries also have similarities. Lowest level in all countries is the municipal level (municipality in Finland, eldership in Lithuania, and rural settlement in Russia), which can include one or several villages. The municipality usually also provides basic public services like repairing of pavements/roads, keeping of population register, etc. The second level from below is sub- region in Finland, municipality (which could be municipal district, city district or municipality) in Lithuania and municipal district in Russia. In Finland and Russia the highest level is called ‘region’ and ‘county’ in Lithuania.
In all the three countries cases for this project were chosen from different levels. In Lithuania the selected projects were organized on the lowest possible level – at the level of villages. In Finland the Rock Art Project was based on the third level – level of municipality, while the Village Sports project is a LEADER-project operating in a number of municipalities. In Russia the projects operate at the level of municipal district.
The reason behind these differences of levels in the project is explicable by the selection process. Lists of potential cases for the study were made during the expert interviews. In Finland there were eleven projects; in both Russia and Lithuania there were five projects (for details, see the chapter on expert interview). On the basis of the expert interviews and secondary data seven cases were selected for this project: two in Finland, two in Lithuania and three in Russia. Therefore the difference in levels is due to the selection of projects being based on the opinions of the experts.
56
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 2. Administrative structure of three countries and selected cases
Levels 1 2 3
Finland Region Sub-region Municipality Villages
South Savo Mikkeli-district, Riistina includes 6 municipalities
Lithuania County Municipal district Eldership
Siauliai, includes 7 Siauliai Gruzdziai Dargaiciai municipalities municipal district, eldership village includes 11 elderships
Moletai municipal district, includes 11 Utena county, elderships Balninkai Balninkai includes 6 eldership township municipalities
Russia Region Municipal district Rural settlements Villages
Nizhny Novgorod region, includes 662 municipalities Semenov district, 16 rural 195 in (among them 48 includes 17 settlements Semenov municipal districts settlements (16 municipal district and 532 rural rural and 1 urban settlements) settlements)
57
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Finland, South Savo
South Savo, a region of the Province of Eastern Finland, is located in south-east Finland (see map 2). The south-west part of the region lies approximately 200 kilometres from the metropolitan area. South Savo is famous for its lakes, especially for Lake Saimaa, the largest lake in Finland. A quarter of the province’s surface area is water, and the lakes are undoubtedly one reason why the province is a popular location for summer cottages.
Map 2. Location of South Savo
The South Savo region includes three cities: Mikkeli, Savonlinna and Pieksämäki, and 14 other municipalities: Enonkoski, Heinävesi, Hirvensalmi, Juva, Joroinen, Kangasmäki, Kerimäki, Mäntyharju, Pertunmaa, Punkaharju, Puumala, Rantasalmi, Ristiina and Sulkava. The region is divided into three sub-regions or districts according to the three cities: the Mikkeli district, the Savonlinna district and the Pieksämäki district.
South Savo has approximately 160 000 inhabitants. The largest city and the provincial centre is Mikkeli with approximately 50 000 inhabitants. Savonlinna and Pieksämäki each have
58
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
approximately 20 000–30 000 inhabitants. From 1995 to 2005, the population of South Savo decreased by almost 7%. In addition, in South Savo the proportion of the elderly grows faster than in the rest of the country. However, the summertime residents notably increase the region’s population. (See e.g. Etelä-Savo 2025 Maakuntasuunnitelma [County Plan] 2005.)
The public sector has an important role in the regional economy. Service industry is the largest employee of South Savo. Two out of three employers work in the service sector and almost half of these places of employment are in the public sector. There has been a structural change affecting the agriculture of South Savo: the number of farms has decreased and the average farm size has increased. Agriculture, especially forestry and milk production, is still an important source of income in South Savo. Approximately 10% of the working population works within primary production. A large part of South Savo’s industrial production is based on forestry; for example nearly half of Finnish plywood comes from the region. South Savo also invests in information and media technology, and tourism (see e.g. Etelä-Savo 2025 Maakuntasuunnitelma [County Plan] 2005).
The development of South Savo region depends on international, national, regional, sub- regional and local actors. After Finland joined the European Union in 1995, Finnish rural policy has been strongly linked with EU policy. The rural areas in Finland receive funding for rural development from the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland (2007– 2013), financed from European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and national funds. Other important EU programmes are Structural Fund Programmes (2007 - 2013) associated with European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) (see e.g. OECD 2008).
South Savo region is included in governmental Regional Centre Programme 2007–2010. The Mikkeli district and the Savonlinna district have their own Regional Centre Programmes (see Mikkelin seudun aluekeskusohjelma [Regional Centre Program of Mikkeli Region] 2007– 2010; Savonlinnan seudun aluekeskusohjelma [Regional Centre Program of Savonlinna Region] 2007–2010). The northern part of the region is included in the Regional Centre Programme of Varkaus district, North Savo region. South Savo region is also included in governmental Centre of Expertise Programme 2007–2013, which aims at creation of new jobs and at regional development in the selected fields of expertise. South Savo’s fields of
59
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
expertise are: nanotechnology, forest industry and tourism (see Osaamiskeskusohjelma [Program for Centre of Expertise] 2009).
Two institutions are of special importance for the regional rural development in Finland: the Regional Councils and the Employment and Economic Development Centres9 (TE Centres) (OECD 2008, 104–108). Regional Councils are public authorities, which lead regional development and supervise the execution of EU programmes. The guidelines for the development of South Savo are set in the Strategic Regional Plan and the Regional Development Programme. The Employment and Economic Development Centres, on the other hand, manage EU funds at regional level. The centres have several purposes: e.g. to support and consult enterprises, to promote technological development, to promote farming and fisheries, to develop the vitality of rural areas, and to implement and organize regional labour policy. South Savo Employment and Economic Development Centre is the administrator of the regional rural development programme. The regional rural development programme, part of the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland (2007–2013), defines the regional aims for rural development (see e.g. OECD 2008; Etelä-Savo 2025 Maakuntasuunnitelma 2005; Etelä-Savon maakuntaohjelma 2007–2013).
On sub-regional and local level of rural development especially important actors are Local Action Groups, municipalities and village action groups (OECD 2008, 104–108). Local Action Group (LAG) is a rural development association (or cooperative) that gathers together local people, associations, enterprises and local government. LAG encourages development of rural areas. Each LAG creates a development plan for the area and is responsible for the management and the implementation of the plan. LAGs were created in Finland when Finland joined the EU, and, at the same time, also started the LEADER II programme. Due to the extensive promotion of the LEADER method, LAGs have covered all rural areas in Finland since 2007 (OECD 2008; Pylkkänen & Hyyryläinen 2004; Hyyryläinen 2007).
During the programme period 2007–2013 there are 55 Local Action Groups in Finland, and three of them operate in the area of South Savo. Those three Local Action Groups are Veej’jakaja ry, Piällysmies ry and Rajupusu ry. Veej’jakaja ry. operates in the municipalities
9 In connection with the Reform Project for Regional State Administration (2009), the former Employment and Economic Centres (TE-centres) were transformed into Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY-centres). 60
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
of Hirvensalmi, Kangasniemi, Mäntyharju, Puumala, Ristiina, Mikkeli and Pieksämäki. Piällysmies ry. operates in the municipalities of Enonkoski, Heinävesi, Kerimäki, Punkaharju, Savonlinna and Savonranta. Rajupusu Leader ry. operates in the municipalities of Rantasalmi, Juva, Sulkava and Joroinen.
On local level, rural development work is done by municipalities and Village Action Groups. Village action refers to local, self-initiated development work carried out by local people in order to enhance the vitality of their own home region (the Village Action Association of Finland 2007). There are 220 voluntary village committees and registered village associations in South Savo. Järvi-Suomen kylät ry (Villages of Lake District Finland) is a provincial coalition of these committees and associations.
Partnerships are an established practice of Finnish rural development work and several policy programmes promote the emergence of social partnerships. In Finland, partnerships have become well-known especially through Local Action Groups, which gather together participants from different sectors. On sub-regional level, the formation of social partnerships is also promoted for example through the governmental Regional Centre Programme, which aims at strengthening vitality, competitiveness and social capital in selected regions. The Regional Centre Programme 2007–2013 especially focuses on strengthening public and private sector partnerships on various administrative levels (Aluekeskusohjelma [Regional Centre Programme] 2009).
Ristiina
Ristiina is a municipality in southern part of South Savo region (see map 3). Ristiina is a part of Mikkeli district and its neighbouring municipalities are Mikkeli, Mäntyharju, Hirvensalmi and Puumala. Ristiina is situated approximately 20 kilometres from Mikkeli and 200 kilometres from the capital, Helsinki. The municipality has a total area of approximately 750 square kilometres and the population is around 5 000 inhabitants. (See e.g. Ristiina 2009; Mikkelin seutu 2009.)
According to national rural classification (see Malinen et al. 2006), Ristiina is a rural heartland municipality. Rural heartland municipalities are specialised in forestry and agriculture, which makes them vulnerable to the agricultural restructuring process (OECD 2008, 16). In Ristiina, approximately 10–15% of the working population works within
61
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
primary production (Ristiina 2009), whereas in whole Finland, agriculture employs fewer than 4% of the working population (Niemi & Ahlstedt 2009, 11).
Map 3. Location of Ristiina
Ristiina is often perceived as South Savo’s centre for wood processing. The most important industry in Ristiina is plywood industry and the single most important employer is UPM Pellos plywood factory. The factory is also the largest industrial enterprise in South Savo region. Service industry is important in Ristiina and approximately 40% of the working population work in the service sector. (Ristiina 2009.)
Ristiina has a coastline of almost 1200 kilometres, which makes it an ideal municipality for summer tourism and recreational housing; approximately 3 000 cottages and recreational residences are situated in Ristiina. Besides nature, also history attracts visitors to Ristiina. Ristiina was founded in 1649 by Per Brahe the Younger and was named after his wife Kristiina. The ruins of the Brahe castle can still be seen in Ristiina. Probably the most famous attraction, however, is Astuvansalmi with its ancient rock paintings. The pictures (and groups of pictures) have been painted with red ochre onto a craggy cliff, and they mainly date to the Stone Age, i.e. roughly about 5000–1500 B.C.E. (Ristiina 2009; Pentikäinen & Miettinen 2003).
62
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Ristiina is involved in the Regional Centre Programme of Mikkeli district and is a part of Local Action Group Veej’jakaja’s area of operation. Veej’jakaja’s development programme focuses on encouraging new entrepreneurial activities, educating rural inhabitants and increasing their social capital, and on networking and strengthening of cooperation in the area (see Veej’jakaja 2009). The municipality takes part in the development of the area independently as well as through Miset Oy (Miset Inc.). Miset is a sub-regional livelihood development company, which the municipality of Ristiina owns together with six other municipalities of the Mikkeli district. Regarding rural development, the municipality of Ristiina has a rural office and a named representative for rural issues (Ristiina 2009). In addition, several village committees operate in Ristiina.
Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region
The Nizhniy Novgorod region is located almost in the centre of the European part of the Russian Federation on the East European plain. The region is included in the Volga-Vjatsky economic region of Russian Federation and in the Privolzhsky Federal district. The total area of the region is 76 600 sq. km. The Nizhny Novgorod region borders the Kostroma region in the northwest, Kirov region in the northeast, the Republics of Marias-El and Chuvash in the east, the Republic of Mordovia in the south, Ryazan region in the southwest, and Vladimir and Ivanovo regions in the west. Administrative centre of the region is the city of Nizhny Novgorod. Since 2001 the city is the centre of the Privolzhsky Federal district.
The population of the region is 3 340 700 (01.01.2009); of these the urban population is 2 636 000 and 704 700 are rural residents. According to the Census of 2002, the national structure of the population includes Russians (95 %), Tatars (1,4%) and other nationalities (3,6 %)10.
The region consists of 662 municipal entities: 48 municipal districts, four city districts, 78 urban and 532 rural settlements.
10 http://www.raexpert.ru/database/regions/nizhny/ 63
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Map 4. Location of Nizhny Novgorod region
The Nizhny Novgorod region does not have any important mineral resources, just local construction materials and salt. Fertile soil is found only in the eastern part of the region. The location of the territory together with its excellent transport routes has contributed to the economic growth of the region making it a center for trade; in the early 1900s, in the beginning of industrialization, it was one of the biggest industrial centers. The main branches of economy are machine building industry, chemistry, ferrous metallurgy, timber industry, pulp and paper industry, light and food industries.
The Nizhny Novgorod region is part of the Nonchernozem zone. Agricultural land of the region is 2755 thousand ha. Various crops and vegetables (sugar beets, onions and potatoes) are grown here. There is also beef and dairy cattle breeding, pig breeding and poultry farming.
Semenov district
Semenov district is a municipal district in the north-eastern part of the Nizhny Novgorod region. It is the biggest district of the Nizhny Novgorod oblast’, the total area is 3900 square
64
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
kilometres; it is located in the so-called North Zavolzh’e (north of the river Volga), in the basin of Kerzhenets river. The administrative centre is the town of Semenov. More than 70% of the territory (285 800 ha) is covered by forest, hence the high employment in forestry and agriculture.
Map 5: Location of Semenov district
Total population of the district is 53 000 inhabitants, 26 700 of them (48 % of population) are living in Semenov, the district centre, which is located 70 km from the regional centre Nizhny Novgorod. The district consists of 16 village administrative units (municipalities), which unite 195 rural settlements.
There are 24 large and medium size industrial enterprises in the district. They make 0,4 % of the industrial output of the Nizhny Novgorod region. The industrial specialization of the district is in mechanical engineering and metal working, which produce 45, 8 % of all industrial output of the district. Their products include pig iron, armature for oil and gas industry, buses, and wood processing machine tools. Besides, in the district there are also other forms of industry, such as chemical industry, wood processing, light industry, flour- grinding and food-processing.
65
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The municipal budget is mainly financed by five enterprises: «Litejno-mechanical factory», Open Joint Stock Company "Semar", Open Joint Stock Company «Armaturny factory», Open Joint Stock Company "Bakery", and Closed Joint-Stock Company «Khokhlomsky list». Their share of the district’s industrial production is 73%; their share of the local budget is 53%, and their share in the maintenance of employment of the population is 66 %. Industry employs about 5300 persons representing 26 % of the total number of the work force of the district economy. The strategic directions for the economic development plans of the Semenov district include deep processing of wood, development of tourism as well as art and crafts.
There are 21 agricultural enterprises and 69 registered farmers in the district. The district has specialized mainly in cattle breeding. Nowadays more than 3000 people are working in agriculture. This is about 15 % of all the employed of the district. However, almost all rural residents have personal subsidiary plots, which produce an important part of agricultural products.
In the district there are many historical places connected with the Old Believers11. Especially in the region of Nizhniy Novgorod the Old Believers have developed art handicrafts and are also known for being skilled in painting icons. One such art handicraft is the well-known Khokhloma wood painting handicraft, an old technique of painting wooden tableware or furniture. For Old Believers of this area the art of shoemaking was also developed as a craft. At present there are two enterprises producing art handicrafts in the district: the Joint-Stock Company «Khokhlomskoi list» and Joint-Stock Company «Semyonovsky list». They produce furniture, toys and souvenirs. Their share of industrial output amounts to 19 %. The district’s art handicraft industry is supported by the state. The museum of Khokhloma was opened in 2006. The historical and natural features of Semenov district create possibilities for the development of tourism. The electrified railway line Moscow — Kirov passes through the district. It connects the European part of the country with the eastern regions of Russia. In addition, there are two highways passing through the district.
11 Old Believers (Russian: ɫɬɚɪɨɜɟғɪɵ or ɫɬɚɪɨɨɛɪɹғɞɰɵ) continue liturgical practices which the Russian Orthodox Church maintained before the implementation of reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon between 1652-1666. 66
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Lithuania, Siauliai and Utena counties
In Lithuania two counties were selected for the project: Siauliai and Utena (see map 6).
Map 6: Location of Siauliai and Utena counties
Siauliai County has a population of 367 000, and its overall territory is 854 000 hectares. Siauliai district has a population of 51 600 and an area of 1800 km². The third largest river in Lithuania, the Venta, flows across the district, making broad curves in picturesque valleys. There are 14 lakes, 18 ponds and several marshes in this area. Forests cover 31.8% of the district, close to the Lithuanian average. The rest of the district's territory (about 40%) is occupied by arable land. Meadows spread over large areas.
The centre of Gruzdziai eldership is Gruzdziai township. This township is known from 1623. In 2001 it had 1730 residents. Dargaiciai is a rather small village near the township of Gruzdziai. The village has 32 homesteads and less than 50 residents. The village belongs to the Gruzdziai eldership. The village was established in 1649. The oldest house that has survived until the present is 200 years old. Many houses represent examples of wooden architecture from the 18th century. The village has preserved the old structure of a traditional 67
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
one-street village; this hasn’t changed since the 17th century. Even now all the homesteads are close to the only street of the village.
Map 7: Location of Dargaiciai village
The Utena County has 86 000 inhabitants. The overall territory of Utena County is 7200 sq. km. It is the most sparsely-populated county in Lithuania. It is divided into 6 municipalities. Approximately 31% of the territory is covered with forests. There are 1000 lakes in the county. They are connected by rivers and provide good opportunities for water tourism. Main branches of the economy are textile industry, food and timber processing and beer and wine production. An outstanding feature of the region's economy is the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant.
Moletai district has a population of 25 400, and an area of 1 370 sq. km. Molơtai is known for its many lakes. There are about 220 lakes in the district and they cover about 7% of the total territory. Since it is only about 60 km north of Vilnius, many Vilnians own summer homes there. The area offers many recreational opportunities. It is easy to reach Molơtai because a highway connects Vilnius and Utena. Since there is little industry, the district is proud of its lack of pollution. The land is not very fertile, therefore the district's government is focused on developing tourism. Molơtai district attracts tourists and summer residents with its lovely landscape and unpolluted nature. It is annually visited by about 150 000 people.
68
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
There are more than 40 beautiful locations in which rural tourism services are offered together with opportunities to travel along the water routes. Forests cover 29% and agricultural land amounts to 47 % of the Molơtai municipality area. There is one town – Molơtai, and there are five townships – Alanta, Balninkai, Dubingiai, Giedraiþiai, and Joniškis.
Map 8: Location of Balninkai township
Balninkai is a rather small rural township near Molơtai. Balninkai has around 470 residents. It is located on the shores of two lakes – Piršơnas and Alaušai. The name Balninkai (Balnike) was mentioned for the first time on November 1, 1338 in a trade agreement signed by the Duke of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy, Gediminas. Now Balninkai is the centre of the eldership. The town has a beautiful gothic style church, elementary school, a library with a folklore museum, and a gallery with paintings and glass works made by the local and national artists. The town also has a leisure time activity centre, ambulance service centre and the Community Centre of Balninkai which is a non-governmental organization.
69
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
4. Expert Knowledge Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Ekaterina Pugina, Alexander Shkerin, Egle Butkeviciene
Introduction
The first stage of the study included expert interviews. The main objectives of these interviews were to identify social and economic problems in the research areas; to get acquainted with the work done previously by the development project in the area; to understand how social innovation and social partnership are understood among the experts and to map the existing forms of social innovations and social partnerships in the study areas. Expert interviews were qualitative semi-structured interviews. The questions were decided beforehand, but the order in which the questions were discussed varied. Because the objective was to get an idea of the social and economic problems and rural development projects in the study areas, several local experts were contacted.
Finnish expert interviews
Altogether 10 expert interviews were conducted during summer 2007 (see appendix 1). The local experts included both personnel from four local action groups and other people who work closely with rural development projects. Most of the interviews (7) were conducted on the premises of Ruralia-institute in Mikkeli. Three interviews were done in Helsinki. Duration of an expert interview was approximately 1–2 hours. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed, but no word-for-word transcription was made.
Social and economic problems of South Savo
The interviewed experts identified several social and economic problems in South Savo. The key problems are listed in table 3. According to the experts, the weak financial situation of both the municipalities of South Savo and local inhabitants is a serious problem. Experts also saw a mismatch between the supply and demand of labour force. While unemployment is a problem in South Savo area, there are also fields suffering from labour shortage.
According to the experts, education is needed, and at the moment South Savo lacks educational institutions. The experts thought that distortion of age structure causes problems for South Savo area. The number of the elderly is increasing and therefore the need for various services is also increasing. At the same time, however, the number of taxpayers is 70
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
decreasing and municipalities are having a hard time trying to provide the much needed services. Exclusion, loneliness and lack of communality were also perceived as problems local people face. The interviewed experts were concerned over the communality both inside the villages and between the villages. Lack of places for villagers to meet and competition between the villages were mentioned as important problems.
Experts also identified several problems local entrepreneurs face. Some of the problems were connected to individual entrepreneurs and others to the entrepreneurs’ operational environment. According to the experts, local enterprises are small and entrepreneurs are too often unwilling to expand their business. Another problem experts named is local entrepreneurs’ lack of entrepreneurial skills, such as networking skills. The problems concerning the operational environment of the entrepreneurs include negative image of entrepreneurship and the small size and disconnectedness of markets.
Table 3. Key problems of South Savo
x Weak financial situation of the municipalities x Unemployment and poverty x Labour shortage x Lack of educational institutions x Ageing inhabitants, growing need for services x Exclusion, loneliness and lack of communality x Lack of growth oriented entrepreneurship x Entrepreneurs’ lack of entrepreneurial skills x Negative image of entrepreneurship x Small size and disconnectedness of market
Rural development projects in South Savo
One objective of the expert interview stage was to map the suitable projects for the case study phase. Experts suggested a number of development projects and innovations. The proposed projects can be roughly divided into three groups. The first group consists of projects that aim at service production. These projects either provide services or promote and facilitate service production. The second group consists of projects that aim at local entrepreneurship
71
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
promotion. The third group consists of projects that aim at enhancing the communality, co- operation and quality of life on rural areas. The sub-regional and local innovative projects the experts suggested are listed in table 4.
Table 4. Proposed projects in South Savo
Project Project promotes or facilitates
Lantula village project Service production
Senet project Service production
Otava co-op Service production
Artisan shop in Pertunmaa Promoting local entrepreneurship
Truffle project Promoting local entrepreneurship
Windmill project Promoting local entrepreneurship
Productization of local rock paintings Promoting local entrepreneurship
Village house from an old cow house Communality, co-operation, quality of life
Five villages' village plan Communality, co-operation, quality of life
Roots of the youth project Communality, co-operation, quality of life
Village Sports project Communality, co-operation, quality of life
Two of the proposed projects were selected for the Finnish case study: the Village Sports project, which aims at promoting communality, co-operation and quality of life, and the productization of local rock paintings, which aims at promoting local entrepreneurship.
Experts definitions of social innovations and social partnerships The key concepts of the study, social innovation and social partnership, were not familiar to all interviewees. However, most experts connected social innovations with vitality of rural areas. In these definitions social innovation was defined as a new way of action that enhances the vitality of villages or rural areas in general. On the other hand, some experts connected social innovations more precisely to communality; social innovation was defined as something that enhances interaction and communication between people living in rural areas. Finally, some experts connected social innovation to privatization of public services. In these
72
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
cases, social innovations were presented as potentially good business and as a new possibility for local entrepreneurs.
Although many experts were unsure about the definition of social partnership, most of them connected social partnership with an idea of a common goal and striving towards that goal together. A few defined partnership as a structure: a network that ideally connects municipalities, third sector and local entrepreneurs. Trust and equality were mentioned as features of cooperation in partnerships. Partnership as a concept was also separated from the concept of network. Experts thought that commitment is more intensive in partnerships than in networks. One expert connected social partnerships more directly with service production.
The Finnish expert interview stage provided important insight into the situation of South Savo: the problems the region faces and the development efforts and projects that have been made on sub-regional and on local level to overcome these problems. In addition, the interviews enabled the selecting of two interesting and potentially innovative projects for the case study phase and gave important first-hand information on the selected projects.
Russian Expert Interviews
Six expert interviews were conducted during July and September 2007 (see appendix 1). Interviews were conducted in Nizhny Novgorod on the premises of the Advisory Centre, the Ministry of Agriculture and at the University of Nizhny Novgorod, and in Semenov on the premises of the Rural Advisory Centre. The duration of an expert interview was approximately 1–2 hours. Interviews were tape-recorded and word-for-word transcriptions were made.
The social and economic problems in the Nizhny Novgorod region
The interviewed experts identified several social and economic problems in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The key problems are listed in the table 4.3. The respondents highlighted the following as the most serious problems of the rural areas: the increasing number of rural settlements without agricultural or industrial enterprises; the increasing amount of unemployment due to the bankruptcy of some of the agricultural production units; decreasing standard of living of the rural population. All experts also mentioned the growth of differentiation of the rural population.
73
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The out-migration of the most socially active and qualified part of the population is another problem. This is linked to the destruction of social infrastructure in connection with the lack of financial resources for preschool and school education, public health services, culture and consumer services. The experts also pointed out decreasing educational and cultural levels of youth in rural areas, resulting from disappearing educational and cultural services from rural areas. These problems require a complex approach in order to solve them. The experts considered it necessary to combine the efforts of the various levels of federal, regional and local legislative and executive authority, businesses and the non-commercial organizations.
Table 5: Key problems of the Nizhny Novgorod region x Increase of the quantity of rural settlements without agricultural and industrial enterprises x Problem of financial assistance x Increasing amount of unemployment x Decrease in the standard of living of the rural population x Growth of differentiation of the rural population x Out-migration x Destruction of social infrastructure
Rural development projects in the Nizhny Novgorod region
Directions of how to solve the problems in rural areas can be seen in the federal target program “Social development of rural areas for the period till 2010” and in the priority national project “Agro-industrial complex development”. At the regional level “Strategy of development of the Nizhny Novgorod region till 2020” was accepted by the regional government. The program “Development of agriculture of the Russian Federation” from 30.06.2007 is accepted by federal government.
Social innovation in rural areas tied to the question of financial assistance. Projects are usually financed through national projects which include federal, regional and local levels. Secondly, there are specific donation programs, from which both individuals and organizations can apply for funding for some specific social innovation projects.
During the interviews experts proposed several projects in the Semenov district. These projects, which can be defined as social innovation projects, also include partnership aspects. 74
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
New approaches to the formation of regulatory mechanisms for social and economic processes in rural areas have been realized in four pilot projects: “Increasing the employment of the agricultural population”, “the School of the Young Farmer”, “Work to bless the children”, “the House of Love, Work and Hope”.
Definitions of social innovations and social partnerships
The key issue of the expert interviews was to map their understanding of social innovations and social partnership. We noticed that the experts understood these concepts in various ways. Social innovations were understood in several ways. First, social innovations were understood as “something new; an introduction of new mechanisms which produce better effects in comparison to the old ones, making it possible to improve life in society and to help to solve social problems”. Secondly, social innovations were understood as new market oriented ways of economy and as new forms of agricultural enterprises in comparison with the Soviet collective and State farms. Thirdly, innovative projects were connected with social partnership.
The concept of social partnership was not discussed during the expert interviews, but the idea of partnership relations was mentioned almost in all interviews: “we cooperate”, “we work with partners”, “joint project”, “work on interaction between partners, between the various ministries and departments, uniting their actions for the achievement of one common goal”.
The main socio-economic problems of rural areas, different programmes and projects for rural development were discussed during the expert interviews. The experts shared their own understanding of social innovations and of the role of partnership relations in local development. On the basis of expert knowledge three cases were selected for the research project.
Lithuanian expert interviews Altogether 5 expert interviews were conducted during October-November 2007 (see appendix 1). Most interviews were conducted in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, as most institutions concerned with rural development are located in Vilnius. The duration of an expert interview was approximately 20-45 min. Interviews were tape-recorded.
75
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social and economic problems of Lithuanian rural regions
The interviewed experts identified several social and economic problems. The key problems are listed in table 4.4. According to the experts, the most serious social or economic problems in the rural areas are related to unemployment, lack of infrastructure, passivity and lack of knowledge.
The experts mentioned unemployment, low quality of living in rural areas and poverty and they argued that social innovation can serve as a tool to “create new workplaces in order for the people to survive and be able to help others as well”. The problems mentioned next were problems related to infrastructure development. It was also mentioned that rural residents in Lithuania have great expectations towards the improvements of the infrastructure, and even greater expectations towards social innovations. An expert mentioned that:
Communities had series of trainings especially in LEADER programme, how to prepare a strategy, how to implement “bottom up” principles. The main problem is that after trainings people do not see concrete results. Their expectations focus not on “soft projects”, but they are waiting for concrete, material results, profit. That is common to Lithuanian villagers. That is the most relevant problem to Lithuania, conversely to, let’s say, Finland, where the infrastructure is more developed, and this is the main difference between Lithuania and Finland.
According to one expert “it was a very significant problem that rural population was rather passive during the transitional period. Thus it is very important to activate them by using different methods and orient them towards new kinds of activities”.
Importance of education for innovations was underlined by one expert:
It is evident that highly educated farmers find more easily new ways of finding solutions; new niches for business, and new methods, at least... all pioneers in ecological farming had higher education. And they were one step ahead other rural people.
76
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 6: Key problems of Lithuanian rural regions
x Unemployment x Low quality of living in rural areas, poverty x Problems related to infrastructure development x Passive population (lack of communality) x Lack of knowledge x Environmental problems
Rural development projects in Lithuania
One objective of the expert interview stage was to map the suitable projects for the case study phase. Experts suggested a number of development projects and innovations (table 4.5). According to the data from the expert interviews, it was possible to identify several directions of social innovations that could serve as a tool for restructuring processes in rural areas: (1) new services in rural settlements (like rural tourism, etc.); (2) new education courses for rural people; (3) ecological farming; (4) formation of local action groups; (5) electronic social innovations. The local innovative projects the experts suggested are listed in table 4.5.
Table 7: Proposed projects in Lithuanian rural regions
Project Project promotes or facilitates
Dargaiciai ethnographic village New services in rural settlements
Training in computer literacy in Vadzgiris New education courses for rural people community centre
Initiator of ecological movement “Tatula”, one of Ecological farming the first farmers who started ecological farming
Vaitiekunas ecological farm Ecological farming
LAGs (different cases) Formation of local action groups
Balninkai community website Electronic social innovations
New services in rural settlements (like rural tourism) are essential for the further development of rural regions. According to an expert “the trends should change from
77
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
agriculture to services, for example, to rural tourism”. A very interesting example was given by a parliament member:
As an example, Dargaiciai in Siauliai District. They started from cleaning their environment, they emphasized ethnographic traits of this village, and they planted archaic plants, dahlias… They agreed with an excursion agency that it will arrange tourists’ trips to this village. They started handicrafts. For example they make home- made cheese and sell this product to tourists; and make minty tea according to traditions of this village or kipper fish in an old-world manner. They make money in this way.
New education courses for rural people. Education is very important for the restructuring process. The courses should focus not only on providing knowledge, but also on providing ”knowledge how to learn, how to adjust, how to think and how to find new solutions“. As was mentioned by another expert, “considering the so called soft projects, the main emphasis is on computer literacy training“.
Ecological farming. Ecological farming as an innovation was a significant factor during the restructuring process in rural areas in the transitional period.
Formation of local action groups. Formation of local action groups was facilitated by LEADER+ programme that was launched in Lithuania in 2004. Local action groups prepared projects and strategies for local development, suggesting also the implementing of some kind of social innovations.
Electronic social innovations. One of the ways to support local communities was to create a website for the community, as one expert told:
Communities were invited to write a project in order to get financial support for the implementation of the developed ideas. This was a stimulus to create a community website. A community that was non-digital turns into a “digital” community. It can diffuse information about the activities of the community in the virtual space. It is a rather cheap way to advertise activities. And this is a social innovation.
78
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Experts definitions of social innovations and social partnerships
According to the definition of social innovation, as it is understood in the framework of this project, the main emphasis is on some new kind of programs, initiatives or projects that are operating or are being launched in rural areas, in villages or at regional/district level.
Experts share a very similar understanding of social innovation. One of them emphasized new methods, common actions that facilitate achievement of important aims, activation of rural communities, new kinds of activities using new forms of organization and new ideas how to improve living and a new service or programme, something new that has not been experienced yet, as well as new social relations, solutions or structures.
It is important to emphasize that social innovations in rural areas should not concentrate just on new ideas, but also on methods of arranging ideas, even if these ideas are not new. This aspect was emphasized by an expert on social innovations: “Sometimes ideas are not completely new; nevertheless when you re-shape them in a new way, you get new quality. In that case, it is a social innovation that makes a lot of changes“.
Social partnership was understood as co-operation between different social actors that operate on local, national or international level.
79
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
5. Social innovations and partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Alexander Shkerin, Jouko Nikula, Egle Butkeviciene
The most commonly employed research methods in case study are interviews, documentary analysis and observation (Stark & Torrance 2005, 35). The case studies conducted in Finland, Russia and Lithuania employed all of them. Both individual interviews and focus group discussions were utilised. Individual interviews were qualitative semi-structured interviews, which focused on the selected case projects. The focus group discussions (to learn more about the focus group study, see chapter 6) were based on five main questions, one of them focusing on the selected case projects. Other research methods employed in case studies were participatory observation and documentary analysis, where e.g. project reports and websites were utilised.
Village Sports and Rock Art Center as social innovations in Finland
Realisation of the Finnish Study
Stark and Torrance (2005, 35) point out that in case study it is useful to compare contrasting cases and, for example, study an apparently successful and an apparently unsuccessful example. With this guideline in mind, two projects were selected for the Finnish case study from number of projects that were proposed in the previous stage of the research project – the expert interviews (see chapter 4). The Finnish case study focuses on two projects: the Village Sports project and the Rock Art Centre project. The interviewed experts considered both projects as innovative. However, already in expert interviews it became clear that whereas the Village Sports project has been successfully executed, the execution of the Rock Art Centre project has faced some serious obstacles. Altogether 15 interviews were conducted for the case study in 2007–2009 in Mikkeli, Ristiina and Helsinki. In addition, an interview with a villager who participated in Village Sports was conducted through e-mail in 2008. Information on the individual interviews is presented in the appendix in table 1.
80
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Village Sports project – promoting health, wellbeing and social inclusion in rural areas
Village Sports project aims at activating rural inhabitants of South Savo. The project promotes health and wellbeing of rural inhabitants by means of physical exercise. Besides health promotion, Village Sports also aims at strengthening village communities by increasing social interaction. Financial resources of municipalities in South Savo have diminished as a whole, and this trend made the project actors concerned for the maintenance of possibilities for versatile exercising in rural areas. According to a project actor, aging inhabitants and diminishing population inflict pressure on municipalities’ sports division. Often physical exercise can only be organised in population centres. The project actors were also worried about the vitality of the villages. One of the project actors described:
C1B: We have seen the development trend, villages become desolate and village schools and village shops are closed down. However, by creating activities we may give some new possibilities for villages. This Village Sports is one way of creating activity and injecting vitality into villages.
Village Sports project emphasises territorial equality: people should be able to exercise whether they live in town or in rural areas. The project advances and improves exercise activities organised by municipalities, local sports clubs and village associations. The project trains and supports physical education instructors, organises sports clubs and sport events and lends sports equipment for local sports clubs and village associations.
Village Sports project is created and administered by The South Savo Region of the Finnish Sports Federation (ESLI), which is a non-governmental regional sports organisation. Village Sports is a communal rural development project; in 2009 the project was mainly financed by European Union’s community initiative for rural development LEADER. Other main financiers are the state and the municipalities. The funding is allocated through Local Action Group Veej’jakaja ry.
The history of the Village Sports project
The idea for the Village Sports project arose in the non-governmental regional sports organisation ESLI. Another regional sports organisation, The Ostrobothnia Region of the Finnish Sports Federation (PLU), launched a project aiming to activate villagers to exercise 81
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
more. ESLI wanted to join the project, but because South Savo was an Objective 1 region at the time and Ostrobothnia was an ALMA programme region, ESLI could not get involved. A representative of ESLI describes the creation of the project:
C1B: The Roots of the project are in South Ostrobothnia. They (PLU) had this project, and they have really been the pioneers in this village community activity. They were planning a project for villagers together with ten ALMA-programme areas. And I was thinking, well, we are Objective 1 programme area and we cannot miss out on good things, so I suppose we have to start thinking about this, and from there...
Photo 1. Villagers exercising – Village Sports event in Paltanen village (Photo: Miira Niska 2008)
ESLI observed the project at ALMA programme area and at the same time started to plan a project of its own. At the beginning representatives of local municipalities and organisations were invited to project’s design meetings. The project, however, faced some difficulties; both the necessity of the project and the reliability of ESLI as an actor were called into question.
82
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
According to a project actor, ESLI was a relatively new actor when it started to plan the project and for this reason there was some lack of trust:
C1B: We were rejected at first. It took a surprisingly long time. - - Perhaps we (ESLI) weren’t yet convincing enough. Now people have started to take us seriously and we are a wanted partner. But maybe that was the initial stage that ESLI had to earn one’s spurs so to speak, to be a competent actor.
The idea was that one Village Sports project could encompass the whole South Savo area. However, the discovery of Local Action Groups was an important turn: after that it seemed good to divide the project and to execute it in Local Action Group areas. Local Action Groups of South Savo area were convinced that the project was a necessary one; and the first Village Sports project was launched at LEADER programme LAG Rajupusu. Actors at Juva municipality were already planning a similar project and so the project “Kotiseutu kohtaa liikkumalla” (Home area encounters exercising) started in June 2005. The first project ended in summer 2007, and the second Rajupusu Village Sports kicked off after one year in June 2008. After Rajupusu area, Village Sports was also launched at Veej’jakaja and Piällysmies Local Action Groups. Village Sports at Veej’jakaja started in November 2005 and ended in December 2006. Veej’jakaja’s second Village Sports project continued activating the villagers in January 2007, and the project ended in May 2008. The third Veej’jakaja Village Sports kicked off in June 2008. In February 2006 Village Sports was also launched at Piällysmies Local Action Group. The second Piällysmies Village Sports started in June 2008.
Village Sports at Veej’jakaja LAG
The case study focused on the Village Sports project of Veej’jakaja LAG. The first Village Sports at Veej’jakaja was kicked off in November 2005. The project started with a preliminary enquiry and with meetings with municipalities’ secretaries responsible for the sports. According to the project actors, a crucial feature were the existing possibilities, ‘Is it possible to exercise in rural areas?’ The idea behind these occasions and the preliminary enquiries was to map the needs and resources of rural areas. There were discussions over the state of exercise and sports in villages and at local clubs. Villagers’ wishes were heard, and at the same time the Village Sports project was introduced to the villagers. As one of the project actors stated:
83
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
C1A: It is important to map what the villagers want. We don’t push our ideas on to them!
The first Village Sports project ended in December 2006. The project activated villagers specially by organizing sports events, by promoting cooperation between e.g. local sports clubs and villages, and by training sports instructors for the villages. The project produced for example chair gymnastic groups for adults, a fitness gym for men and sports clubs for children, education and training for sport instructors and sports events organized in cooperation with various local actors.
The second Village Sports project at Veej’jakaja started in January 2007. Few important changes were made for the second project. In the second project the activity was allocated by selecting so-called Pilot Villages. The idea behind these Pilot Villages was to improve and to promote exercise activities in certain villages more persistently than it had been possible to do during the first project. Village associations, village committees, resident associations etc. were asked to send their applications in case they wanted their village to become a Village Sports Pilot Village. The Pilot Villages were then selected by the Village Sports project’s guidance group. Each Pilot Village made a plan for the development of sports and exercise activities. The plans included e.g. events, courses, clubs, a gym and family baseball.
Besides the Pilot Villages another novelty in the second Village Sports project was a Sports Trailer. The Sports Trailer is a trailer filled with sports equipment, and villages and local sports clubs at Veej’jakaja area are able to use them for free. Along with the trailer comes an instructor who guides and encourages the villagers to use the equipment. During the first Village Sports project the actors of ESLI noticed a need for the Sports Trailer. The villages did not have sports equipment, the equipment was too expensive for village associations to purchase and it was also difficult to borrow the equipment.
C1A: During the first project we noticed that for example they (villagers) needed baseball equipment because they wanted to play family baseball. And well, there was no equipment anywhere and it is quite expensive for a village association to buy baseball equipment. - - I have heard that even schools are not always willing to lend their equipment. The cooperation doesn’t necessarily work so that village
84
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
associations can use schools’ equipment. Or schools don’t even have such equipment. And of course they are anyway made for children and not for adults.
The Sports Trailer equipment includes for example: shots, javelin, hammer, beach volleyball, basketball, football, baseball, boules and floor ball equipment, trampoline, snowshoes, skateboards (with helmets etc.), skates (with helmets etc.), tent, heart rate indicator, footstep indicator, percentage of fat indicator. The estimated value of the trailer with the sports equipment is 7 000–10 000 €12. Although the Sports Trailer is a novelty in South Savo, it is not the only place where the idea of a Sports Trailer has been utilized. For example in western Uusimaa region a trailer filled with sports equipment for children toured already at the end of 1990’s. Sports Trailers can also be found for example in North Karelia.
Photo 2. Sports Trailer (Photo: Miira Niska 2008)
The idea of a Sports Trailer was instantly supported, but there were some problems with the trailer’s funding. At first the Employment and Economic Development Centre (TE Centre) could not approve funding of the trailer. The trailer (with the contents) was considered an
12 An empty trailer is worth around 2 000–3 000€. 85
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
investment which could not be made with project funding. The reason was the short time frame of the project. As a solution ESLI financed the trailer on its own with help from sponsors (mainly enterprises). Once the trailer was financed by ESLI, the project was able to finance the purchase of the equipment for the trailer.
The third Veej’jakaja Village Sports started in June 2008. Again few changes were made to the new project. One of the novelties was Sports Pharmacy, designed to promote adults’ physical activity. In practice, Sports Pharmacy is a travelling van offering activities relating to health and physical activity such as measurement of blood pressure and percentage of body fat, information about physical activity and physical fitness tests. The third Village Sports project is also specifically concerned with physical activity of the youth. The project promotes creation of hobby groups for young people. In addition the project participates in carrying out an international group exchange program targeting young people of South Savo. As in the previous projects, the third Village Sports also organises sports events and sport clubs, promotes cooperation and trains sports instructors. The third Village Sports is also aggregating a new sports village network and the Sports Trailer is still available for the villagers.
Actors in the Village Sports project
Village Sports is mainly a third sector project. The project is created and administered by ESLI (The South Savo Region of the Finnish Sports Federation), a non-governmental regional sports organisation. ESLI is one of the 15 regional sports organisations of the Finnish Sports Federation. ESLI supports and supervises the interests of actors involved in sports and cooperates for example with local associations and organisations. Village Sports’ project manager works for ESLI, and ESLI’s regional manager has also been a key actor in the creation of the project.
Village Sports project is funded through Veej’jakaja ry. Veej’jakaja is one of the three Local Action Groups that operate in South Savo area. During the programme period 2007–2013 Veej’jakaja is a LEADER group and executes the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland, financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). However, during the period 2001–2006 of the programme Veej’jakaja was a nationally funded POMO+ group. In Finland, Employment and Economic Development
86
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Centres (TE Centres)13 manage EU funds at regional level, and South Savo TE Centre reviews each project application favoured by Veej’jakaja LAG in order to insure that there are no lawful excuses.
Pieksämäki Sports Federation is a coalition of sports clubs at Pieksämäki area. Pieksämäki Sports Federation supervises the interests of local sports clubs and promotes sports and exercising at Pieksämäki area. Pieksämäki area is part of Veej’jakaja’s area of operation and therefore it is natural that Pieksämäki Sports Federation takes part in Village Sports project.
The project is connected with its beneficiaries, local people and summer residents, through village committees and local sport clubs. The Village Sports project aims at improving and promoting activities of local sports clubs, but local sports clubs also take part in executing the project. The Village Sports project buys for example sports instruction services from the local sports clubs. Local sports clubs at Veej’jakaja area are normally membership organizations of ESLI or Pieksämäki Sports Federation, and are thus connected with the project. The connection with the village committees is attained through the Villages of Lake District Finland. The Villages of Lake District Finland (Jäsky) is a regional coalition of villages in South Savo. The aim of the coalition is to support area’s village associations and village committees and supervise the interests of local people.
ESLI, Pieksämäki Sports Federation, Veej’jakaja and Villages of Lake District Finland are the main actors of the project. These actors also form the core of project’s guidance group14. The project cooperates with village committees and local sport clubs whilst local people and summer residents are the beneficiaries of the project. The financial resources are supplied by the European Union and the State through South Savo TE-centre, which has also had a representative in the project’s guidance group. The central actors of the Village Sports project are presented in figure 7.
13 Employment and Economic Development Centres (TE Centres) are promoters of labour policy and livelihood development, steered by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of the Interior. (see chapter 3, footnote 10). 14 Guidance group gathers together experts (on projects topic) with an aim of supporting and supervising the implementation and execution of the project. 87
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Figure 7. Central actors of the Village Sports project.
Besides the central actors, several other actors have been important in Veej’jakaja Village Sports project. From the third sector, the Finnish Sports Federation, the Young Finland Association and PLU (the Ostrobothnia Region of the connected Sports Federation) have been involved with the project. Sports Federation (SLU) is a non-governmental federation, which serves as an umbrella organisation for its 125 member organisations, ESLI being one of them. The Young Finland Association (Nuori Suomi) is a national organization with the main objective of promoting children’s well-being by means of physical activity. PLU, like ESLI, is one of the 15 regional sports organisations of the Sports Federation. The Sports Federation and the Young Finland Association have provided for example recommendations, guidelines and material for ESLI. PLU has not participated in Village Sports but has played an important and inspiring role in the creation of the project.
The public sector has mainly been the financier of the project, which has been funded through European Union’s LEADER and national POMO programmes. The funding has been allocated through South Savo TE-centre. The municipalities of South Savo region have, however, been involved especially at the beginning of the project. Municipalities (especially 88
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the secretaries responsible for the sports) participated in the project’s planning phase and in the beginning municipalities also had a representative in the project’s guidance group. It seems that municipalities’ active participation has decreased and at present the municipalities are mainly part-financiers of the project.
The private sector has had a minor role in the project. Some enterprises have been involved in the project as sponsors. The project had difficulties in funding the Sports Trailer and therefore the project looked for help from sponsors15.
Figure 8. The network of the Village Sports project
Figure 8 presents all actors that have been involved in the Village Sports project and the levels of the Veej’jakaja Village Sports network. The actors are mainly from the third sector and the project successfully connects third sector actors from national, regional and local
15 Länsi-Savo (regional paper), Marskidata (enterprise in South Savo), MPY (enterprise in South Savo), Etelä- Savon osuuspankki (co-operative bank in South Savo), Osuuskauppa Suursavo (cooperative in South Savo) and Tapiola (enterprise) have sponsored the purchase of sports equipment for the Sports Trailer. Besides enterprises also MAMK (Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences) has been involved in sponsoring the Sports Trailer. 89
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
level. Mustakangas et al. (2003, 78–79) have analysed partnership roles and according to their classification, in the Village Sports project, the third sector actors play both the key roles (ESLI, Villages of Lake District Finland, Veej’jakaja and Pieksämäki Sport Federation) and the assisting and supporting roles (the village committees, local sports clubs, SLU and the Young Finland Association). The public sector actors from international, national, regional and local levels, on the other hand, play the steering role as financiers and local people and summer residents are the beneficiaries – or the customers – of the project.
Village Sports project as social partnership and social innovation
Although there are several slightly differing definitions for social partnerships, the definitions commonly share three points: actors from different sectors, common goals, and shared resources (see e.g. Geddes 1998; James 2002; Seddon et al. 2004). The social partnership thus refers to target-oriented collaboration between actors from at least two different sectors. The partners share the target they aim at, and the resources with which the target is aspired.
The Village Sports project is connected with a regional social partnership: the Local Action Group Veej’jakaja ry. In addition, the project fairly clearly also includes a project type social partnership (or a project partnership). Although the project has involved actors from all three sectors (see figure 7) the partnership is based on the cooperation between the third sector and the public sector.
The main partners (the key actors) share the same goal: to promote health, social inclusion and wellbeing in rural areas. Although the project is funded through Veej’jakaja LAG and TE-centre, the central actor ESLI has also invested some money in the project. The cooperation between the project actors seems functional and the key actors explicitly praised each other as good partners. However, there have also been some problems with the third sector and the public sector cooperation. According to the central actors, in the beginning, the project and the central actor ESLI faced some mistrust. The third sector actors felt that especially the municipalities called into question the need for the project and also ESLI’s capability to run the project. Later on municipalities have funded the project through Veej’jakaja and have also offered facilities for the project. Another friction point in the cooperation between the third sector actors and the public sector ones was related to problems with financial decisions and invoicing. From the third sector actors’ point of view, TE Centre
90
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
has been too slow in financing decisions as well as in invoicing. The delays cause problems especially for small organisations, which in those cases have had to invest their own money in the projects.
Besides the horizontal level, Village Sports also includes the so called vertical dimension of partnership (see Moseley 2003b). The project connects actors from several levels (see figure 8). Although the central – or key – actors are all from the regional or sub-regional level, the financial resources are drawn mainly from the national and international level along with some additional expertise knowledge and knowhow. The project is targeted for local level actors; village committees and sports clubs, and local inhabitants and summer residents. These beneficiaries have been fairly well taken into consideration in all stages of the project.
According to Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw and González (2005) social innovation contains three core dimensions. First of all social innovation satisfies human needs that are not currently satisfied (either because they are ‘not yet’ or because they are ‘no longer’ perceived as important). Secondly social innovation changes social relations that enable the satisfaction of these needs and increase participation. Thirdly social innovation empowers people by increasing socio-political capability and access to resources. Carayannis, Gonzalez and Wetter (2003, 118), on the other hand, classify innovations according to four dimensions: the process of social innovation (the way in which an innovation is developed, diffused and adopted), the content of innovation (technical or social nature), the context of innovation (the environment in which the innovations emerged and developed) and impacts of innovation (social or technological change that results from the innovation).
The effects of the Village Sports project have mainly been studied by following the amount and form of activity organized by the project. For example, during the second Veej’jakaja Village Sports (2007–2008) the project organized 39 sports events with circa 2 300 participants. These events included for example Sports Trailer events, baseball instruction and an ice skating event. Six new sports groups were formed and in addition the project organized sports instructor trainings and sports guidance. Village Sports seems to be well able to increase activity inside the villages, but it is difficult to say whether the project is really able to promote health. As one project actor stated:
C1A: We are not testing whether someone loses weight!
91
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The project has also gathered feedback from the participants. In February 2008 Village Sports organised a Pilot Village meeting where second Village Sports project (years 2007–2008) was discussed. According to the participating villagers, the Pilot Villages had done various things with the help of the project. They had e.g. organised volleyball and baseball nights and boules competitions between villages. Altogether the project received positive feedback. The participants thought that the Village Sports project had succeeded in giving a possibility to try out new forms of physical activity. Sports Trailer was considered important and some local village schools had also utilized it. According to participants the project had increased community spirit and cooperation between different actors. Participants evaluated that the project had increased connections between neighbouring villages, as well as between local people, newcomers and summer residents.
However, some needs for improvement were also identified. Although the Pilot Village representatives agreed that it was easy to participate in Village Sports events, they hoped for more men to take part in the project. It is obvious that not all villagers are equally enthusiastic about Village Sports events. Some villagers were also concerned that the activities may end as soon as the project finishes. It is apparent that there is a need to establish more stable activities, not just events.
The Village Sports project clearly is a social innovation. The possibilities for versatile exercising have been decreasing due to the diminishing resources municipalities have at their disposal. The project has successfully drawn together actors from different sectors and levels to promote villagers’ exercising. In addition, the project seems to have increased cooperation among villagers and summer residents and empowered at least some villagers to improve the quality of their life. Following Carayannis et al. (2003), the Village Sports project seems to be a bottom–up social innovation that did not emerge in a rural community, but is instead developed jointly with rural communities. It has also had a social impact.
Ristiina Rock Art Centre – promoting rural tourism and entrepreneurship
The famous rock paintings of Astuvansalmi are located in South Savo, in the municipality of Ristiina. Astuvansalmi is a significant part of Finnish rock art and according to Miettinen and Willamo (2007, 45), it is in many ways the most essential monument of Finnish rock art. Finnish rock paintings are usually located near water (such as lakes) and are typically found
92
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
in the area of central and southern Lake Saimaa. The pictures (and groups of pictures) have been painted with red ochre and can be dated to Stone Age. Painted pictures have been preserved partly because of a glasslike layer of silicon dioxide that has covered the pictures (See Pentikäinen & Miettinen 2003). The pictures are painted on a craggy cliff resembling a human face (see photos 3 and 4).
Photo 3. Astuvansalmi (Photo: Miira Niska 2008)
The rock paintings of Astuvansalmi were discovered in 1968 by Pekka Sarvas. The paintings were, however, familiar to local people already before that. The paintings of Astuvansalmi 93
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
include about 70 pictures; the most common subjects are humans, elks, boats and imprints of a palm. The most famous picture represents a woman with an arch. This picture, often called the Amazon of Astuva, has been utilized in local art. In 2004 Hilkka Wilkman and Anne Mäkeläinen published a poetic book called “Astuvan amatsoni” (Amazon of Astuva). The book was inspired by the rock paintings at Astuvansalmi and it gave rise to a musical and a theatrical performance, both held in Ristiina.16 Besides the paintings, some objects (e.g. three amber charms) have also been found in Astuvansalmi. The charms were found in submersible researches in the 1990’s. The charms are carved to resemble a human face (see Pentikäinen & Miettinen 2003; Miettinen & Willamo 2007).
Ristiina has several ongoing tourism business development projects; the establishment of a national Rock Art Centre is one of them. Although there has been some controversy over the nature of the centre, the leading vision is that the centre shall be an information, research and tourism centre that attracts families and schoolchildren as well as rock art experts:
C2F: The Rock Art Centre will be a tourist centre for the whole family. - - we have research activities; experts of rock art visit the centre and organize seminars. Then there has to be a restaurant, of course, services and accommodation facilities.
The centre is supposed to serve several goals. On one hand, the idea is that the centre promotes rock art research and offers information on rock art to the general public. On the other hand, the centre also promotes entrepreneurship. The centre is designed as a tourist attraction, and tourists presumably need services and products: accommodation and restaurant services, souvenirs etc.
The history of the Rock Art Centre project
Originally the idea of a Rock Art Centre rose from a need to promote local entrepreneurship. At the beginning of the 2000 Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training (present Ruralia Institute) suggested to the municipality of Ristiina some form of cooperation. This started with a project to develop tourism and food entrepreneurship. The project was done by the municipality of Ristiina and Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training. During the project, the actors discovered that the local entrepreneurs hardly used the potential of their local history. Project actors noted that in particular the rock paintings of Astuvansalmi were
16 “Kallioon ikuistettu” [Immortalized in the rock] and ”Astuvan amatsonit” [The amazons of Astuva]. 94
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
quite well-known, but poorly utilized. According to an actor, who worked in the tourism and food entrepreneurship development project, the idea of a Rock Art Centre was born in one of the project meetings:
C2A: I remember clearly that we were over there in the wooden house and around that round table. And we went through the interviews. - - I can’t remember who had the idea. I think it might have been me. - - But I remember it was an insight that hey, we must have a centre.
Photo 4. Rock paintings on a craggy cliff of Astuvansalmi (Photo: Miira Niska 2008)
95
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The actors of the tourism and food entrepreneurship development project were excited and the municipality of Ristiina became interested in the idea. Because Astuvansalmi paintings are part of Finland’s cultural heritage the project actors soon contacted the National Board of Antiquities which immediately supported the idea of a Rock Art Centre.
First pre-disquisition
After the tourism and food entrepreneurship development project, Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training offered to make a pre-disquisition over the establishment of the centre. Municipality of Ristiina financed the pre-disquisition and Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training executed it together with Postuumi KY, an enterprise specialised on history research. The pre-disquisition was completed in May 2002 (see Leskinen & Särkkä- Tirkkonen 2002).
In the first pre-disquisition the project actors got acquainted with Finnish information, science and activity centres (e.g. Lusto and Kierikki) and visited a Rock Art Centre located in Tanum, a municipality in Sweden. Tanum was listed at UNESCO world heritage list in 1994 and the first pre-disquisition recommended that Ristiina municipality should immediately try to find out whether Astuvansalmi could become a world heritage resort too.
The first pre-disquisition sketched three possible types of Rock Art Centres: a national science and tourism centre, a regional tourism centre or a local information centre. A national centre would be Finland’s leading Rock Art expert with international relations. The regional centre would be a cultural attraction without research activity. A local centre would be a small information centre which would mainly operate in the internet. Besides the type of the centre, the first pre-disquisition also took into consideration for instance the location of the centre and the need for the support of the local people.
Second pre-disquisition
In spring 2003 the Regional Council of South Savo allocated money to Ristiina municipality for a second pre-disquisition. The purpose of the second pre-disquisition was to continue outlining the Rock Art Centre. The second pre-disquisition was financed by European Union (European Regional Development Fund), the State and the municipality of Ristiina. The project hired a project secretary. The second pre-disquisition was completed at 2004 (see Franck 2004). 96
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The second pre-disquisition stated that the Rock Art Centre should be a national science and tourism centre. According to the second pre-disquisition, the centre should promote rock art research and international networking of rock art researchers. A national centre could also enable more versatile financing than a local or a regional centre. The second pre-disquisition also suggested that the centre should focus on communication and on handicraft. The concept was recommended mainly on the basis that the centre needs to distinguish itself from other Nordic Rock Art Centres, which often focus on nature. According to the pre-disquisition, communication was chosen because many researchers view rock art as a form of communication, not as just art. Handicraft was chosen mainly because Ristiina area has a tradition of handicraft entrepreneurship.
The vision for the Rock Art Centre of Ristiina, created by the second pre-disquisition, is that it promotes the research and conservation of rock art and unites rock art researchers. The centre informs general public about rock art and about the development of communication and handicraft from the Stone Age to present day. According to the pre-disquisition, the aim of the centre is twofold: to promote conservation of and respect for rock art, and, secondly, to strengthen both cultural tourism and business life in Ristiina and South Savo region.
The first pre-disquisition project considered locating the centre into an old building. The second pre-disquisition project, however, stated that a new building must be built for the centre. The second pre-disquisition project stated that a memorable and impressive building should be built on a plot owned by the Ristiina municipality. There was also a suggestion made of some possible financiers. The list of potential financiers consisted of the European Union (e.g. ERDF and ESF), the State (ministries), the Regional Council of South Savo, T&E Centres (Employment and Economic Development Centres) and various funds, trusts and enterprises. The pre-disquisition emphasised that Ristiina municipality will not build the centre, but that the centre should be built and administrated by a trust and a special Association of Rock Art.
Establishment of the Finnish Association of Rock Art
According to a recommendation of the second pre-disquisition project, the Finnish Association of Rock Art (Suomen kalliotaideyhdistys ry.) was established in November 2006. The Finnish Association of Rock Art is a national association and Ristiina is the domicile of
97
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the association. The aim of the association is to promote knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of rock art. In addition, the association supports the establishment of a Rock Art Centre in Ristiina. The founding members of the association are the municipalities of Ristiina, Puumala, Savitaipale, Suomenniemi and Taipalsaari, Ruralia Institute and Ristiina association. In the beginning, one of the aims of the association has been to increase the number of its members. The association has made a brochure, which introduces rock art as well as the activity of the association. The association also has internet pages17.
UNESCO World Heritage List
According to recommendations of the pre-disquisitions, Astuvansalmi should be included on the UNESCO World Heritage List18. At first, Astuvansalmi was to be included in the list as a cultural property. However, Astuvansalmi is a rather small resort, and therefore it had a better chance of getting the world heritage status as a part of Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System, rather than on its own, especially since the latter has been proposed to be included in the world heritage list as natural property. At present Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System has been included on the so-called World Heritage tentative list (28/01/2004). (See Hiedanpää 2007.)
Counterproposal: Rock Art seminar and establishment of a local centre
Although the idea of a Rock Art Centre aroused interest, the vision, the concept and the recommendations of the pre-disquisitions were not fully agreed upon. A rock art specialist and some local entrepreneurs organized an international rock art seminar in Ristiina in August 2007. Participants of the seminar included e.g. French expert of cave paintings, conservator Norbert Aujoulat and Professor Juha Pentikäinen. The seminar was mainly financed by the South Savo Regional Fund and by the organisers. The explicit object of the seminar was the establishment of a Rock Art Centre in Ristiina. Seminar actors suggested that the Rock Art Centre should begin as a smaller-scale centre established in the old premises owned by the municipality of Ristiina. The objectives of the centre were outlined as compilation of data relating to rock art and development of cultural tourism in Ristiina.
17 http://www.kalliotaideyhdistys.fi/index.html. 18 At the moment Finland has seven properities on the list: Old Rauma (on the list 1991), Fortress of SuomenliNizhny Novgoroda (1991), Petäjävesi Old Church (1994), Verla Groundwood and Board Mill (1996), Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki (1999), Struve Geodetic Arc (2005) and Kvarken Archipelago/High Coast (2000, 2006). 98
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
However, the suggestion of a smaller-scale centre in the old premises did not receive full support.
Second rock art seminar and plan for the third pre-disquisition
At the end of 2007, Ruralia Institute (previously Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training) decided to apply for funding for the third Rock Art Centre pre-disquisition. ERDF (EU’s European Regional Development Fund) funding was applied for from the Regional Council of South Savo. The idea was that a part of the project could be funded through ESF (European Social Fund).
MN: Where did the idea to plan this project come from?
C2B: New EU Structural Fund period, there is money distributed now ((laughing)) - - It is like now or never! It is very difficult to imagine how we could finance such a centre if we don’t receive EU funding.
The plan was that the third pre-disquisition project consists of three parts. The aim of the first part was to plan the content for the centre. The idea was – for example – to design a basic exhibition, a virtual visitation to the paintings, and to compile a publication about the rock art in the Saimaa area. In addition, a seminar to celebrate the 40th anniversary of discovering Astuvansalmi paintings was included in the project plan. The aim of the second part was to promote the building of the centre. The plan was to design a business plan for the centre and to organize a competition for the architectural designing of the centre. The aim of the second part was also to map the financing opportunities for the centre. The third part dealt with the promoting of entrepreneurship. The aim was to help entrepreneurs in networking and to help them to make products related to the rock paintings. The objective was to create new products and services around the Rock Art Centre.
However, the Regional Council of South Savo did not view the project plan positively and the project plan was finally withdrawn. The future of the Rock Art Centre project is now unclear. The rock art seminar (mentioned in the first part of the third pre-disquisition plan) was successfully organised in Ristiina in September 2008. The seminar was mainly organised by the Finnish Association of Rock Art to celebrate the 40th anniversary of discovering the paintings of Astuvansalmi.
99
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Actors in the Rock Art Centre project
The Rock Art Centre project is mainly a public sector’s project. The key actors of the project are the municipality of Ristiina and the Ruralia Institute. The project has originally been created for the municipality of Ristiina by the representatives of Ruralia Institute. Municipality of Ristiina financed the first pre-disquisition project and was actively involved in the second one. In addition, municipality of Ristiina is one of the founder members of the Finnish Association of Rock Art.
The other key actor is the Ruralia Institute of the University of Helsinki. Ruralia Institute is an independent institute and the two units of Ruralia are situated in Mikkeli and Seinäjoki. The mission of the institute is to improve the sources of livelihood in rural areas and to develop the living conditions of rural people. Initially the institute was established in 1988 and the name was Institute for Rural Research and Training. The name Ruralia Institute was introduced at 2005. The Mikkeli unit of Ruralia Institute has been a central actor in Rock Art Centre project from the beginning. The idea of a Rock Art Centre came up in one of Ruralia’s projects; Ruralia was involved in the first pre-disquisition project; it took part in the guidance group of the second pre-disquisition project; Ruralia tried to launch the third project and is one of the founding members in the Finnish Association of Rock Art.
The National Board of Antiquities became a central actor at an early stage of the project. The National Board of Antiquities is attached to the Ministry of Education and preserves Finland’s material cultural heritage. It has an important role in the establishment of the Rock Art Centre because The National Board of Antiquities is responsible for protecting Astuvansalmi as the Astuvansalmi rock paintings are protected by the Antiquities Act (295/63). The National Board of Antiquities was contacted at an early stage and the Board has supported the idea of the Rock Art Centre.
The Rock Art Centre project has been mainly funded by the municipality of Ristiina (the first pre-disquisition) and the Regional Council of South Savo (the second pre-disquisition). The Regional Council of South Savo is a public authority responsible for the general development of the region. The council cooperates both with ministries and with the European Union. The second pre-disquisition was partly state- and partly EU-funded. However, the Regional
100
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Council refused to finance the third pre-disquisition project, and thus it seems the Council lacks confidence in the project.
Later on the Finnish Association of Rock Art has become one of the central actors. The association is the only central actor which is not from the public sector. The aim of the association is to promote knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of rock art. In addition, the Association supports the establishment of the Rock Art Centre in Ristiina. The vision is that later on the Association could also be involved in the activities of the centre. The central actors of the Rock Art Centre project are presented in figure 9.
Figure 9. Central actors of the Rock Art Centre project
Besides the central actors, several other actors have been participating in the project. From the public sector, Ristiina’s neighbouring municipalities have been involved in the project, especially through the Finnish Association of Rock Art. Ristiina is not the only municipality in South Savo with rock paintings, and the Centre has publicly endorsed as its aim to benefit the whole region. The support of the neighbouring municipalities has been sought in particular through the Finnish Association of Rock Art. Establishment of the Rock Art Centre is at present supported through the Association by municipalities of Puumala, Savitaipale,
101
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Suomenniemi and Taipalsaari. However, not all neighbouring municipalities have been willing to join the Association or give their support for the establishment of the centre.
The Finnish Association of Rock Art is the central third sector actor in the Rock Art Centre project. Other third sector actors have been involved, although their role is less salient. Ristiina Association (Ristiina-seura ry) is a home area association, which takes part in the project through the Finnish Association of Rock Art.
The Ruralia Institute has also tried to involve the University of Helsinki Institute for Cultural Research (in particular the Department of Archaeology). The Institute of Cultural Research operates under the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki. The Department of Archaeology – like the Finnish Association of Ancient Art – has been contacted during the planning of the third pre-disquisition project, so the Institute of Cultural Research has not yet been active in the Rock Art Centre project.
The alleged beneficiaries, local entrepreneurs, have an ambiguous role in the project. According to one view, the centre should, at least partly, be run by entrepreneurs:
G2F: I don’t get it. If it is a good business idea we should find an entrepreneur to run the centre. But if it is a bad business idea, well then I don’t see why we should have the centre in the first place.
Some think, on the other hand, that entrepreneurs are not the ones who should run the centre, but should only create the services for the centre. One part of the third pre-disquisition project was meant to network entrepreneurs in order to facilitate the creation of services and products for the potential visitors of the centre. Like the role of entrepreneurs, the role of Miset Oy (Miset Inc.) is not yet established. Miset Oy is a livelihood development company owned by seven municipalities around the Mikkeli region. The owners of the company are the municipalities of Mikkeli, Puumala, Ristiina, Pertunmaa, Kangasniemi, Hirvensalmi and Mäntyharju. The aim of Miset Oy is to promote entrepreneurship in the area and to create new enterprises and new jobs. Miset Oy was contacted only during the planning of the third pre-disquisition project, so it has not yet been an active participant in the project19. There is, however, one enterprise that has been actively involved in the project: Postuumi. Postuumi is
19 The relationship between Miset Oy, the municipality and the local entrepreneurs is further discussed in chapter 6. 102
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
an enterprise specialised on historical research and it was involved in realising the first Rock Art Centre pre-disquisition.
Finally, the role of local people is problematic. Since the beginning of the project, the importance of the support of the local people has been recognised. The key actors have organised events in which local people have been informed about the project giving them the opportunity to ask questions and to share their thoughts about the project. Some local people see the project as a necessary one and support it. However, the project also has opponents. The most important justification for opposition is that the centre will not be profitable and so it will not be worthwhile to build it. The Rock Art Centre project has also been a topic of conversation in the local paper called Ristiinalainen.
Figure 10: The network of the Rock Art Centre project
Figure 10 presents all actors that have been involved in the Rock Art Centre project and the levels of the Rock Art Centre project network. The actors are mainly from the public sector and the project has quite successfully connected public sector actors from local, regional and 103
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
national level. The third sector has been included later on in the project, but the private sector and local people are not strongly involved. According to the classification of the partnership roles (see Mustakangas et al. 2003, 78–79), the public sector actors (the municipality, Ruralia Institute and the National Board of Antiquities) and the Finnish Association of Rock Art play the key roles in the project and in partnership. The Ristiina Association and the neighbouring municipalities have assisting and supporting roles. The Regional Council (with money from the State and the EU) has had a role in steering the finances, but at present the project and the partnership lacks financiers. The alleged beneficiaries are local entrepreneurs but also local people. The role of Miset Oy, the Finnish Association of Ancient Art and the Institute for Cultural Research is not yet established.
Rock Art Centre project as social partnership and social innovation
Unlike the Village Sports project, the Rock Art Centre project is not clearly connected with established partnerships, such as Local Action Groups. The project has tried to include actors from all sectors (see figure 9), but the project has been dominated by the public sector actors. All key actors are from the public sector, except for the Finnish Association of Rock Art (which has anyway been started by public sector actors, i.e. the municipalities and Ruralia Institute). The Finnish Association of Rock Art, however, could become an important venue for the private and third sector actors to really join the project.
As was presented earlier, definitions of social partnerships commonly share three points: actors from different sectors, common goals, and shared resources (see e.g. Geddes 1998; James 2002; Seddon et al. 2004). There have been some misunderstandings over the resources each actor is willing to invest in the project. The municipality has been active in the project and this activeness has led some actors to assume that the municipality will be financially in charge of the whole centre. The municipality of Ristiina has tried to correct this mistake and has emphasised that they might participate for example by offering a plot for the centre:
G1A: The municipality has no resources to give to the building of that centre, but we have thought that perhaps the municipality could provide a spectacular operational environment for the centre. We have already earmarked a beach front for the centre.
104
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The National Board of Antiquities has promised its support and expertise for the project, but is not able to provide financing. The Ruralia Institute is willing to invest time and expertise on the project, for instance it has prepared project applications in order to move the project forward. The resources Finnish Association of Rock Art could provide for the Rock Art Centre are slightly unclear. The association has been actively involved in making the project well-known. However, the second pre-disquisition suggested that the centre could be administrated by a special Association of Rock Art. Some actors suppose that Ruralia and the Finnish Association of Rock Art are the main actors of the project. As one actor stated“I think the project is well profiled now; it is not a project of the municipality, but of the Ruralia Institute and the Finnish Association of Rock Art”.
All in all, there is a serious deficiency of actors who could financially contribute to the centre. The project was not successful in involving the Regional Council in the project. Obviously financiers are needed, and there seems to be no real consensus over where the financing could come from. Some actors suggest international and national public funding, some suggest trusts, some suggest entrepreneurs and yet others a mixture of all of them.
Finally, there seems to be some controversy over the goal of the project. First of all there is no general agreement whether the centre should be established at all or not. Although the central actors are convinced of the necessity of the centre, the central actors haven’t been able to convince other relevant actors – especially financiers and the local population. There are two major concerns which prohibit support for the project: whether there is a real need for the centre, and whether the financial risk is bearable. One of the project actors explained how local people don’t see the project as promotion of entrepreneurship:
C2B: Local people view the centre as trifling. There are some inhabitants who see this as a possibility and value the cultural heritage, but you can count them with the fingers of one hand. There needs to be work on the attitudes so that people realize that this is a project for the future. Now this is viewed as a project of the past and people don’t see the impact this could have for the local economy.
On the other hand, the financial risk is viewed as enormous and there is no established agreement on who should bear the financial risk. Local people are worried that at end of the day the municipality of Ristiina will be in charge of the potential financial loss.
105
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Secondly, there seems to be some controversy over the nature of the centre. There are two competing visions: the first one emphasises rapidity and harmlessness, the other one high standard and quality. The first vision is shared by many local people and by a few project actors. According to the first vision, the centre should start out little by little. It could be established quite quickly in some old building in Ristiina and this way huge investment could also be avoided:
C2E: We thought that let’s start establishing that centre. There are empty barns in Ristiina.
G3K: They have big plans with the centre, expensive plans. And some say that we have to have all at once! And I have to say, I disagree. I think we should start more modestly, something small at first and then from there. The old school might be available. We might start the centre there.
The second vision is shared by the central actors. The central actors emphasise that the centre should not be modest but of good quality. The actors also argue that an old building stigmatizes the whole centre. As one actor stated:
C2G: They (some actors) thought that we could start small, but we think that is too humble. We must raise the standards. The standard of the centre must be good from the beginning. I mean this is a national centre and fine settings are required.
Thirdly, there still seems to be some controversy over the location of the centre. Majority now agrees that the centre should be located in Ristiina (although some have suggested the centre should be located e.g. in Mikkeli). There are, however, disagreements about the most suitable place in Ristiina. For example some state that the centre should be situated near the paintings, some say instead that it should be situated in the centre of Ristiina.
The controversies over the nature and location of the centre are connected with the goals the centre is supposed to serve. The initial goal for the centre was to promote local entrepreneurship. However, later on, the idea has shifted towards building a national centre with wider connections so that currently the centre should not only promote local entrepreneurship, but also promote rock art research and conservation. In addition, according to some actors, the centre is supposed to promote entrepreneurship regardless of where the
106
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
entrepreneurs are from. Obviously, several interests are clashing, and an important question is whether these interests are compatible or contradictory.
The Rock Art Centre of Ristiina cannot be classified as social innovation, because the idea of the centre has not been implemented yet, and a mere idea without implementation is not an innovation (see e.g. Hisrich et al. 2007). According to the dimensions of Moulaert et al. (2005), the Rock Art Centre of Ristiina could, however, become a social innovation. The first dimension of a social innovation underlines the needs. The question is, whether there is a need the centre could satisfy, a need which is ‘not yet’ or ‘no longer’ satisfied. Although the question warrants more attention, the need to promote and develop tourism entrepreneurship in South Savo is even written into the development programme of South Savo Region for the years 2007–2013 (see Regional Council of South Savo 2006).
The second and third dimensions of social innovations (see Moulaert et al. 2005), are related to the execution of an idea, and thus they are not applicable to the Rock Art Centre project. The second dimension stresses changes in social relations. At the moment the project has not (yet) successfully changed relations in order to promote entrepreneurship in the area. The third dimension stresses empowerment of people by increasing socio-political capability and access to resources. It is unclear whether the centre could have some empowering consequences. The centre might, for example, strengthen local identity. In the case study, the aspect of identity formation was not as salient as the local economy aspect. Following Carayannis et al. (2003), the Rock Art Centre of seems to be more of a top–down idea that has a social nature. The idea has not emerged in the rural community and is not developed together with rural communities. The project could, however, have an impact on the local economy and thus have an important social impact as well.
107
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Summary of Finnish case study
Village Sports project The Rock Art Centre project
Bottom-up / The idea for the project came from The idea for the project came from top-down a regional sports organisation, not the university of Helsinki, Ruralia from the villagers or local sports Institute, so the project is a top-down clubs, so the project is more a top- initiative down than a bottom-up initiative
Local social There is a need for versatile There is some disagreement whether needs exercising possibilities in rural the centre fulfils local social needs or areas. Because of the diminishing not. Although the main idea has been financial resources of the to promote local entrepreneurship and municipalities, the fulfillment of business life, some people are afraid this need has been endangered. In that the centre would only be a addition, aging inhabitants and museum everyone can do without. diminishing population inflict pressure for the sports division of the municipalities.
Local social The project has been successful in impact increasing activity in the villages. The project has organised sports Because the centre has not been events and sports groups for both established, there is no social impact adults and children. In addition, yet. the project lends sports equipment for villagers.
Local Municipalities have provided Astuvansalmi itself is an important Resources financial support for the project local resource. The municipality of through Veej’jakaja LAG. Also Ristiina has been actively involved in local sports clubs take part in the project and also financed the executing the project. For planning of the centre. The example, Village Sports project municipality might also assign a plot buys sports instruction services for the centre. from local sports clubs.
108
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
External The project is mainly financed by resources Veej’jakaja LAG which is a LEADER group (previous POMO The project has had difficulties in group). The project has thus getting external financing. However, received both national and EU it successfully taps into the expertise funding. The project has also used found in national level public and the expertise of national level third third sector organisations. sector organisations, as well as materials given by these organisations.
Empowerme The project aims at strengthening nt rural communities by increasing Because the centre has not yet been social intercourse among the established, empowerment cannot be villages, the villagers, the local evaluated. inhabitants and summer residents.
Partnership The project is mainly a public sector (actors from project that cooperates with third different The project is mainly a third sector sector actors. Some private sector sectors) project that receives funding from actors have also been involved in the the public sector. project.
Social Promotion of social inclusion is inclusion one of the main objectives of the Village Sports project. Although the Village Sports events were generally considered - approachable, a more comprehensive inclusion of men was hoped for.
109
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social innovations in the Semenov district in Russia
Semenov district in Russia was selected as a case study region. We have studied two projects there: Children’s Shelter with “the School of the young farmer” and “the Increase of employment of rural population”, a sheep project. Implementation of both projects became possible because of funding opportunities provided by the fund of the local community, the so called “Partners’ Council”. As an additional case, we have also studied the creation and the activity of a credit cooperative “Kerzhaki”. Besides, special attention was paid to a social partnership agreement in the Semenov district.
Partners’ Council as initiator of grass-roots initiatives
The work of the Partners’ Councilis is based on the principles of community foundations. The first foundation was established in 1914 in USA, and the original idea was to consolidate a number of charitable trusts into a single organization, which is then overseen by trust banks. The fund would focus its giving of grants in a defined geographical area to meet the needs of all the people. The foundation would be governed by a local board of citizens.
In Europe the first community foundations appeared in the late 1970s, first in the United Kingdom in 1976, and by 1991 there were 15 established and 14 aspiring community foundations (Sacks, 2004). In the middle of the 1990’s there was a real boom in the establishing of foundations in Europe: for example, in Slovakia (1994), Portugal (1995), Germany (1996), Lithuania (1998) and Russia (1998). In 2005 there were 1175 community foundations in 46 countries (Sestrensky, 2005 13).
The community foundation model was brought to Russia by the Charities Aid Foundation in 199520. CAF Russia made a lot of effort to disseminate the idea of community foundations as an effective means for structuring local social activities. After carrying out a survey of the areas with the highest potential for establishing a community foundation, the choice was made to create the first community foundation in the city of Togliatti on the Volga River.
The Togliatti Community Foundation was registered in 1998 and CAF became one of its founders. CAF Russia assisted the Community Foundation to attract international funding in the initial stage of its development, but very soon the foundation involved local stakeholders
20 See http://www.cafrussia.ru/ 110
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
in its operations. Now the Togliatti Community Foundation is mostly reliant on local funding and is building an endowment. Along with CAF Russia, the support for establishing community foundations and CPOs21 was provided by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, IREX, the Soros foundation (Open Society Institute of Russia), USAID, DFID, CIDA and other development agencies.
In the beginning foundations in Russia were named as city charity funds, because they were created in urban areas and involved in urban regeneration. Later on some foundations started to pay attention to rural areas too (for example Perm’ and Nizhniy Novgorod funds). Nowadays funds are called “fund of local community” (ɮɨɧɞɦɟɫɬɧɨɝɨɫɨɨɛɳɟɫɬɜɚ). The mission of these funds is to improve the life of the whole community and therefore they are not focusing on specific charity programmes, but instead they direct their activity towards the actual problems of the local territory during the selected period. Such approach allows to work out an integrated view of the development of the community. At the moment the community foundation concept has becomes more popular in Russia; nowadays there are 21 local community funds across the country. All of these funds are members of the Partnership of Local Community Funds.
Partners’ Council – fund of the Nizhniy Novgorod region local community
The Partners Council fund of Nizhniy Novgorod local community was created in January 2004. The foundation organizes fundraising from physical and juridical persons in the Nizhniy Novgorod region in order to implement grant programmes directed to the solving of the socially significant problems of the region.
The Partners’ Council occupies a unique place between the State, businesses and the society. As there is a growing gap between the scale of problems and the scale of the offered solutions (Social silicon valley, p. 7), the Partners’ Council fund plays a very important role in local development. The fund allows to accumulate additional resources and to distribute them; its activity is directed towards the solving of the most imminent problems of the community. The fund makes it possible for both the donors and the recipients to interact in a mutually respectful and orderly manner while carrying out common projects.
21 Community Philanthropy Organization 111
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
During 2004-2007 the fund organized five grant programmes and financed 99 projects with the total sum of 25 million RUR (approx. 660 000 EUR). The foremost spheres of the projects were the following: social protection and support of population; education and youth policy; sports and tourism; employment; culture; medical care; urban environment and the modernization of communal services. The main target groups were the veterans, the pensioners, the disabled, and the youth and children. Until autumn 2006 all grant programmes were financed by the Department for International Development (DFID) with the addition of local resources. At present the main task of the Partners’ Council is to create mechanisms which will provide the fund financial stability in the future.
Children’s Shelter and the “School of the young farmer”
The history of the Children’s Shelter
The Children’s Shelter is located in the rural area of Nizhniy Novgorod region and it was one of the applicants of the grant competitions organized by Partners’ Council.
The director of the shelter was one of the initiators of the creation of the Children’s Shelter. Her original idea was to establish an Orthodox shelter based on the Sunday School in another village, but a priest from the local church did not support the idea of creating a shelter. It was, however, supported by the head of the local (district) administration, possibly because the local authorities had already thought about establishing a shelter. The director of the Shelter told in her four interviews during the project about her ideas concerning the creation of the shelter, ‘I have suggested to organize…’ (interview 28) and also talked about ‘their idea[…] their theory[…] our realisation[…]’(interview 5). A member of the local authority said, a, ’Local self-government has started this project (interview 12). Therefore, irrespective of who the real initiator was, the shelter is a local initiative.
The initial budget for organizing the shelter was 1, 2 million RUR (approx. 32 000 EUR) and it was planned to be fully paid from the Semenov district budget. Later on the budget increased to 1, 93 million RUR (approx. 51 000 EUR) and the share of the local (district) budget was 58,6 %. Nizhny-Novgorod oblast, the regional level authorities, paid 33,7 % of the budget and 7,7 % came from another sources (e.g. sponsors). The shelter was created under the leadership of the Department of Employment and the Centre of Social Protection of
112
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the Population, together with the Employment Department of the Nizhny-Novgorod oblast. It is a bottom-up initiative supported by both the local and regional authorities.
Photo 5: Childrens’ Shelter in Semenov (Photo Jouko Nikula 2007)
The foundation of the shelter was a very important idea, because the shelter acts as an intermediary between parents unable to care for their children and the court which can terminate parental rights. The goal of the shelter is to return the children to their families and to protect the families from disintegration. This task is very important because at the time of writing there are 15 586 orphans and children without parental care in the Nizhny-Novgorod oblast’ (2,6 % of the total amount of children in the region). Every year this number increases by approximately 2500 new cases of children not living with their original family.
“The School of the young farmer” made its own steps in parallel with the creation of the shelter (the official foundation of the shelter, the renovation of the building, establishing the communications systems, the obtaining of necessary equipment, furniture, etc.). Whereas the
113
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
foundation of the shelter was mainly financed by regional and local budgets, the financing of “the School” was done on project and sponsor base. “The School” took part in several grant programmes organized by different funds. Among them were the fund of Saint Serafim Sarovsky22 (in 2006) and the Partners’ Council.
Photo 6: The projects of the Children’s Shelter (Photo: Jouko Nikula 2007)
The shelter got funding from two of grant programmes organized by the Partners’ Council. The first grant was too small for all the work needed. This led to the innovative idea making of several applications to different organizations all directed to the achievement of a single goal.
At this stage there was very little money - 100-200 thousand RUR (approx. 2800- 5700 EUR). It is not possible to make a good project with so little money. However, it is possible to join several projects in order to make one good one (interview 2).
22 http://www.bfss.ru/programs/konkurs_1/konkurs_1_winners/ 114
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
This initiative produced really good results. There were three applications to the Partners’ Council made by the Employment Centre, the Centre of Social Protection, and to the Rural Advisory Centre. The applications were aimed at the creation of “the School of the Young Farmer” based on the Children’s Shelter. All three applications got funding. The application made by the Centre of Social Protection made it possible to open an agricultural farm on the grounds of the Shelter. The goal was not only to use the yields of production for the children, but also to get them involved with working with animals and working the land. The Employment Centre’s grant was used for the creation of new jobs in rural areas. It was accomplished by selecting workers who had worked with animals on the Shelter’s farm. The Rural Advisory Centre provided advisory and consulting services for animal care.
These three organizations and the Shelter have formed a social partnership in order to implement idea of “the School of the Young Farmer”. Besides, many other actors from various levels were also attracted to this partnership from both local and regional levels. There were public authorities (such as the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Work, the Department for Social Protection of Population and Employment and local (district) administration); there were the sponsoring enterprises together with the Nizhny-Novgorod Advisory Centre in the role of a non-commercial organization, and lastly also the local population was interested in the partnership. Representatives of all sectors took part in the implementation of the innovation. Each partner had their own task. For the three main actors the tasks were defined in their applications for funding; the tasks of the other actors have been in accordance with the demands of the Shelter (for example the construction of furniture by the local citizens, construction work done by sponsors, the financing of some work in the Shelter by the local administration, etc). A very important aspect of the partnership, the co-ordination of the partners, has mainly been done by the representative of Nizhny-Novgorod Advisory Centre and the director of Shelter.
115
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Funds Regional authority
Local population Rural school Employment services
District authority Shelter Department of social protection
Rural advisory
Business centre Rural authority
Nizhny Novgorod AC
Public (municipal) sector Public (state) sector
Private sector Local community Third sector
Figure 11: Central actors in the Shelter and the School of the Young Farmer
116
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
International level DFID, Britain
National level Fund of Saint Serafim Sorovsky
Regional authority Business Fund “Partner’s Regional level Council”
Nizhny Novgorod AC
District level Employment Department of SME social protection services
Rural advisory District authority centre
Settlement level Shelter Rural school Rural authority
Local population
Figure 12: The network of the Shelter and the School of the Young Farmer
The goals of the Shelter and the School of the Young Farmer
The Shelter opened the doors for children at the beginning of 2007 and at the same time the “School of the Young Farmer” started to work. The organization of the Shelter and the forming of the school on the foundation of the Shelter have reached several goals, namely the renovation of the building, the creation of new work places for the local population and helping the children. The last goal is the main one. At its core is the idea to unite the process of rehabilitation of children with the transferring of agricultural skills to them. 117
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The roots of this idea are in the labour education formulated by A. Makarenko (1957) and C.Freinet (1994). The main principles they promote can be seen in the training principles of the Children’s Shelter. These are:
x Pedagogy of work (pédagogie du travail): pupils were encouraged to learn by making products or by providing services. x Enquiry-based learning (tâtonnement expérimental): group-based trial and error work. x Cooperative learning (travail coopératif): pupils were to co-operate in the production process. x Centres of interest (complexe d'intérêt): the children's interests and natural curiosity are starting points for a learning process x The natural method (méthode naturelle): authentic learning by using the real experiences of children. x Democracy: children learn to take responsibility for their own work and for the whole community by using democratic self-government23.
The Shelter employees use the idea of labour education, but they have adopted Makarenko’s and Freinet’s educational principles in new circumstances, and thus “the School of the Young Farmer” can be seen as an innovative project.
The children are very complex; they have a difficult nature and deviant behaviour; there are children who have absolutely not been prepared for any work. The sense of innovation is that a child takes pleasure in work, which s/he has never done before. Now they sign up for sweeping the sheep pen with great pleasure. Some children were not able to do anything, but they can learn while they work. The innovation is in finding out the real interest of each child. One likes to build a shed, another one to mow grass. Our task is to find out the abilities of a child and to create a situation in which s/he can show her/his abilities (interview 5).
Makarenko considered labour education as one of the major elements of physical training; it also promotes at the same time mental and spiritual development of the person. The director of the Shelter repeated the same idea: ‘Working a plot of land can develop memory, physical activity and speech’ (interview 5).
23 See more on the website http://www.freinet.org/icem/history.htm 118
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 7: A girl from the Shelter taking care of a sheep (Photo: Inna Kopoteva 2007)
Another important idea Makarenko is to consider the collective as an educational method ‘which, being general and unique, at the same time provides an opportunity for each separate personality to develop its own specific features and maintain its individuality’ (Makarenko, 1957, 14). Again, the same ideas are presented by the director of the Shelter.
The children are working in a collective. Here they learn to respect other children, friends … Those who have adapted already teach the others how to behave (interview 5).
119
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
A child feels that he has a personality, that s/he can adapt to society and has passed all these stresses (internal and external), that s/he feels that s/he is a person, and s/he has received certain skills (interview 5).
Achievements and obstacles
The project has not been in effective operation for very long, but it is nevertheless possible to define some positive and negative aspects of the development of the Shelter and of the “School of the Young Farmer”. The most important factor of success is the director and her ability to communicate with people, the ability “to open any door” (sponsor 18), as it was said about her. Not only does social innovation require visionary leadership, but it also requires leaders who are unusually skilled in the art of persuasion. Persuasion is necessary to acquire financial resources and the support of the elite. It is also necessary to attract the early adaptors, who will maintain, extend, and disseminate ideas (Mumford & Moertl 2003, 264). The director is very good at persuading people, a characteristic shown by numerous examples.
She came and we agreed about cooperation. It is easier and more pleasant to help people if you see them personally (interview 17).
She explains things in a concrete way. She always invites us to visit. The head (of the Shelter) is such a woman that after talking to her once […] it is not possible to refuse to help children (interview 18).
When she has called, we have never refused her (interview 19).
The director of the Shelter has a keen interest in her own work and in the fate of the children, in addition to having the ability to stir up interest in others towards the development of the Shelter. Another factor, which has contributed to the success of the project, is the activity of the local partners (for example the Rural Advisory Centre, the Employment Office and the District administration). Although the period covered by the grant has finished, the Rural Advisory Centre has continued to provide services.
The growing sense of social responsibility in business can be seen as third important factor. Big companies working at national and international level (such as Gazprom, Lukoil, Saul- holding) have social programmes. For example, the programme “Gazprom for children” is 120
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
directed towards the development of sports and culture. Small companies have offered occasional help. In the case of the Children’s Shelter we were told that “Everyone helps. Only one person has refused. Practically all firms I have asked have agreed to help us, little by little, but even so they help. I certainly take my hat off to such people” (interview 5).
There is one more aspect contributing to the success of the Shelter. It was created in 2005- 2006, when financing of this kind of social organisation was moved from the local to the regional budget. This meant there were additional sources available for the development of the Shelter. The Shelter and the School of the Young Farmer were founded at the same time. The Shelter was given regional money (used for the renovation of the building, the buying of needed equipment and furniture and for the salaries of the employees etc.) and the School of the Young Farmer used the money given by the project and the sponsors for its organization.
The negative aspects of the development of the Shelter are partly related to the organization of the work inside the Shelter and partly related to external factors. The strong leadership the Shelter’s director has had some negative side effects. She has tried to do everything herself, to control everything and everybody and she does not fully trust the other employees of the Shelter. As a result of this, the employees are under a lot of pressure coming from the director; this has also led to her being permanently tired and lacking of free time. During the first year of the Shelter the turnover of the staff was quite high. The director told that, “adaptation to the collective did not take place smoothly” (interview 14). Nowadays the staff is settled and the director is very proud of the social workers and of the other employees. One of the probable reasons of the high staff turnover is the director’s strong leadership style.
The second problem is the lack of specialists.
We have no musical teacher, no physical training teacher and no psychologist. I need a person responsible for the schedule and a person for the subsidiary plot. Therefore, grants help us a bit, but do not solve the issues completely (interview 14)
Besides, there is a great deal of writing of reports and other paperwork to be done, which very much distracts the personnel from their main task to take care of the children.
Among external negative factors could be mentioned the lack of enterprises at local level (in the area of the village administration where the shelter is located) and the lack of a medical centre. If children get ill, they have to be taken to the district hospital. At the beginning there 121
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
were tensions with the local population who had negative attitudes towards the Shelter. The local people were afraid of antisocial children who will steal and destroy everything in the village. However, later on the attitude has changed, even though the relations with the local (village) administration are still somewhat problematic. After the Shelter had been approved for funding from the budget of the regional government, the future of the Shelter has been secured. However, the present level of budgeted resources is not high enough to fund the whole range of activities. Therefore, both for present and future needs, it will be necessary to continue to attract sponsors as well as to develop projects which will help funding the activities.
Children’s Shelter as a social innovation
According to respondents, these kinds of shelters exist in many other districts of the Nizhny Novgorod oblast’. However, this particular shelter represents a genuine social innovation in many respects. First of all, the shelter tackles a serious social problem: taking care of children who are without parental support. It does it in a way which takes into account both the needs of the children as well as the needs of the society satisfying them both. According to Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw and González (2005, 11) this aspect represents first core dimension of social innovation: the satisfying of human needs that are not currently satisfied. Besides, in spite of above-mentioned passing problems, the Children’s Shelter qualifies as a social innovation also because of its operational philosophy: applying traditional methods of upbringing in an innovative manner in a rather difficult social environment.
The Shelter helps homeless children to adapt to normal social life and integrates them into society. Children become full members of society: going to kindergarten and to school and participating in various cultural and sports activities. Thus there are observable changes in social relations (the second dimension of social innovation).
Furthermore, the fund-raising initiative (at the very beginning of the founding of the Shelter) could also be defined as an innovation. Both project culture and the partnership culture are not yet well developed in Russia; usually there are just many active actors trying to use the possibilities a project offers for local development. The idea of combining the efforts of public and private actors to generate funds for the Children’s Shelter is an innovative idea, and it is also a step towards developing project culture in Russia. Besides, it can be noted that
122
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
despite the “short history” of the Shelter, it has successfully passed from an idea to an approved practice, which is implied by the fact that the Shelter has been approved as a recipient of regional budget funding. These aspects represent two dimensions of social innovation: increased participation and the empowerment of people by increasing their socio- political capability and their access to resources.
Increasing employment of the rural population (the Sheep Project)
The history of the Sheep Project
As was previously mentioned, both projects have got funding from the Partners’ Council, a local community fund. This project was implemented in the same municipal district (Semenov district) and the initiator of this project was Nizhny Novgorod Advisory Centre of Agro-Industrial Complex (top-down project). Other partners are the Semenov Rural Advisory Centre and the Employment Centre of the district. The idea of this project was not new; Nizhny Novgorod Advisory Centre had a joint project with Heifer International24, which was called “Dairy Goats for Farmers in Nizhny Novgorod” (see table 825).
Table 8: Heifer’s project description
Project Name: Dairy Goats for Farmers in Nizhny Novgorod26
Project Code: 27-0905-01
Budget: $88,305.00
Year Start: 2002
Year End: 2006
24 Heifer International has a unique and successful approach to ending hunger and poverty. Since 1944, Heifer has provided food- and income producing animals and training to millions of resource-poor families in 125 countries. When families receive livestock, they are well on their way to lifting themselves out of poverty and becoming self-reliant. At the heart of Heifer’s philosophy is the commitment families make to “pass on the gift” by sharing one or more of their animal’s offspring with other families in need. http://www.heifer.org/ http://www.heifer.org/atf/cf/%7BE384D2DB-8638-47F3-A6DB-68BE45A16EDC%7D/LGM%20WEB.PDF. 25 http://www.heifer.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=edJRKQNiFiG&b=718997&ct=914085 26 Another project was implemented by Heifer in Leningrad region, Russia. Small-scale Dairy Goat Breeding $82,203; 1999-2004, 27-0901-01. This project supports small-scale goat breeders in the suburbs of St. Petersburg to improve the genetics and health of the local herds. There are examples of Heifer activity in Lithuania too. One of them is Small Scale Dairy Development in Silute $72,890; 2000-2003, 27-00302-01. The project provided about 30 heifers a year to 30 families for three years. New forage was planted to replace that lost in the flood of two years before project. 123
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Country: Russia
Project Profile: The project will provide 100 pregnant dairy goats to 50 farm families in the Nizhny Novgorod region, which has a high unemployment rate. Economic conditions are especially difficult for farmers, who lack experience operating in a market economy. Participants will be trained in dairy goat production and animal care, and will receive training in livestock production, veterinary skills and marketing.
Along with livestock, Heifer is providing training, genetic improvements and veterinary care to help Russian farmers lacking experience in a free-market economy.
Based on their previous experience a new project was formed. As the director of Nizhny Novgorod Advisory Centre told ‘It has been copied from the previous project”27. The idea was the same: to select local people who want/can take care of animals and distribute animals among the local population (free of charge). First offspring must be passed to another family.
The Employment Centre of the Semenov district selected the unemployed people who either wanted or could take part in the project. The people were selected from the whole district, taking into account their motivation, professional skills, the nature of the previous job and the availability of their own subsidiary plot. The Rural Advisory Centre bought the sheep and organized the training courses for the participants of the project. There were some joint meetings in the beginning. The consultant from the Rural Advisory Centre gathered the people who wanted to deal with Romanov breed, and told them how the animals must be fed, kept and taken care of. “She helped us very much. She told us where to get supplements for fodder and where to get cheaper grain. She is still helping us” (interview 21).
27 Interview 2005 (from previous project) 124
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Nizhny Novgorod Funds AC
Rural advisory centre
Local population
Employment
Centre
Figure 13: Central actors in the Sheep Project
International level DFID, Britain Heifer
National level
Nizhny Novgorod Fund “Partner’s Regional level AC council”
Employment Rural advisory District level services centre
Settlement level Local population
Figure 14: The network of the Sheep Project
125
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The goals of the Sheep Project
This project has as its goal to increase the number livestock in villages and to increase employment (self-employment) of the rural population. In the beginning first lambs were bought with money from the grants, but for the continuation of the project, it must go on self-developing (self-financing) base. In the beginning, 12 families with unemployed members were selected and five of them got a sheep. Other applicants should queue to receive sheep, but some of the respondents told that they got a sheep on the basis of friendship or kin ties, not because they had stood in line to receive it.
Achievements and obstacles
The Romanov sheep are rated very positively: it is considered to be a highly productive breed, producing litters twice a year, each with more than two lambs per litter. In addition, the Romanov sheep are easy to take care of and they do not require much food. Some of the respondents have sheep just for their own consumption.
“At least one can feed one’s own family. If you have five females, you can slaughter a sheep each month and there will always be fresh meat… They give us meat so that we do not have to buy it. This is only for us, for the family and the children, it is not a business” (interview 20).
Others see it as a business and want to make a profit. “We wanted to earn some money. Mutton is valued” (interview 21). “I will sell the meat; it seems that it is very expensive now” (interview 22).
Some of the respondents wanted to sell the mutton, others wanted to sell the sheep for breeding. “I would be pity to slaughter them; they are young, it is better to sell them for breeding. At least 200 rubles per kilo of live weight; then it will be profitable…” (interview 20). Sheep wool is also a source of income.
Many respondents noted that there are problems with selling. “We published an announcement in the regional newspaper Zemlya Nizhegorodskaya. Some people call, but nobody came (interview 21)”. Some people sold the produce in the town market during weekends, but noted that “It is not that easy to produce and then to do the selling as well by yourself” (interview 20). 126
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 8: The Romanov sheep (Photo: Inna Kopoteva, 2007)
The project has had some negative results, for example a ram was ill and was slaughtered; some ewes did not produce offspring and one of the ewes was slaughtered, because it was obese. “Perhaps we should have given it less feed-stuff, but as peasants we thought cattle should be well fed. That was our mistake. Obesity would prevent it from getting pregnant” (interview 20). Another respondent told that she had had the same problem overfeeding the livestock.
Some respondents have a superstitious belief that nothing can be free of charge; they received the sheep, but continued to cultivate a suspicious attitude. “We have been working all our life. We only have what we earn or can do with our hands. And if somebody has given us some free stuff, it will be useless” (interview 20).
Previous experience of work with animals has not influenced the results of this project. Almost all interviewed participants of the Sheep Project, had a long experience with animals in general and with sheep in particular. There was only one person who had been a city- dweller in the past. One lady, who is a zootechnician, had a negative experience, and told that
127
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
“We had sheep all the time. My mother kept sheep, and after her death we did too. (interview 21)”.
As can be seen, the majority of the respondents evaluate this project very positively (even the lady who had had a negative experience). Probably this positive evaluation is not about the results, but is more about the general idea of the project, which is “[…] a useful thing to do. The project has a future. I already have a person to whom I will pass a lamb. People have already asked […]” (interview 22).
The main problems of the realization of the project can be divided into several categories.
x Institutional defects: there is no organization in the area that could act as an intermediary buying the meat and wool and taking them to the market. This is one of the obstacles to real success. x Price “gap”: the price imbalance between the locally produced meat and the imported meat from New Zealand; it is not profitable for the local producers to produce meat with the current prices. x Issues related to the product (i.e. sheep): the breed is not 100 % pure Romanov, but a mixture of Romanov and some other breed. x Issues related to training: whether the people who have worked with the sheep and have had the above mentioned difficulties are informed well enough and whether they are qualified to have animals?
The Sheep Project is just a small-scale project (or “experiment” according to the director of the Nizhny Novgorod Advisory Centre) and it will not be easy for it to grow into a serious business. It could be argued that the project is in danger of drying up, if the people continue to have difficulties with their sheep (e.g. the sheep not generating offspring and falling ill because of over-feeding). The Sheep Project will probably, continue to work as a small-scale project for some years.
In order to develop the project more actively, many things would be necessary. For example, it would be necessary to have some customers with purchasing power; the marketing of the products would have to be developed; there would have to be more of licensing and training, etc.; all of which are missing now. Or to put it simply way: the project just needs additional resources to buy new sheep in order to get a wider circle of the local population involved in 128
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
it. But until now the project remains only a small-scale production of meet for private consumption.
The Sheep project as a social innovation
It is difficult to evaluate this project as a social innovation. First, it is not a new idea; it was not adapted to new conditions; it was only copied from another project and was used in almost the same situation.
The first dimension of a social innovation is the satisfying of human needs that are not currently satisfied. In this project this is a weak point. The task of the project is to provide means of self-employment to the local population. But not so many people are participating in it. In some villages just one family has Romanov sheep, and this creates additional problems. One could say that the project satisfies the need of “clean” breeding sheep, but the purchase of clean sheep does not solve the main problems of rural areas and does not even solve the problem of self-employment.
The second dimension is change in social relations. This is also a very weak point because of the small scale of the project; it does not influence very much the social relations in a rural society. The last dimension is increasing socio-political capability and the access to resources. There has been some increase in the access to resources. People have more contacts with the Rural Advisory Centre, the Employment Office and with the local administration both at village and district levels (information resources). Besides, the villages have got loans for sheep raising through the Credit Cooperative (financial resources).
Rural Credit Cooperative “Kerzhaki”
In many interviews the participants pointed out several considerable problems of agriculture: the shortage of financial resources and the difficulties of getting credit. For example, before the realisation of national projects in 2005, it was very difficult to get credit for the development of household plots; although at that time consumer crediting had been widely developed. Banks were not ready to give credits for purchasing cattle, for building farms or for purchasing seeds, because in the case of cattle dying or poor harvest, rural inhabitants could not return the credit and they could not use cattle or land as collateral. These problems
129
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
concerned both large agricultural enterprises and family farmers and owners of household plots.
Collective farms going bankrupt and the policy of joining up of village administrations has resulted in the rate of unemployment rising sharply in rural areas. Besides, there is not enough starting capital available for rural inhabitants to start their own business.
It is difficult to develop household plots without the large agricultural enterprises. A considerable part of the everyday life of the rural people has been organised around collective farms. Having the machinery, the collective farm helped the household plots owners with land cultivation, preparation of hay and with the delivery of forages; it was possible to receive a certain quantity of grain free of charge or to buy it for a reduced price. Nowadays owners of household plots have to buy grain for market prices, which in turn causes a sharp rise in milk and meat prices. The poor equipment of machinery-possessing small producers causes considerable, often insuperable, difficulties. In such conditions creation of credit cooperatives help the solving of some of the problems of the rural areas.
The federal and regional programmes for the development of rural areas as a political background of the creation of Credit Cooperative
The process of the decline of agriculture in Russia has begun since the perestroika time in the 1980s and was aggravated in the 1990s when the transition to market economy led to strong reduction of agricultural production. In the 1990s there were some programs for the support of agriculture; however, they were not diversified enough, rendering insignificant help to some sub-branches of agriculture. These programmes have not resulted in noticeable improvement of the situation.
Since 2006 the situation started to change. Several Priority National Projects28 have been developed in order to support agriculture and the rural areas as a whole. Four areas are being developed in Russia: education, public health services, accessible housing and the development of agro-industrial complexes. The last project includes three aspects: the accelerated development of animal husbandry, the stimulation of the development of small forms of economy in rural areas, and through developing accessible housing making it more attractive for young specialists (and their families) to stay in rural areas.
28 More information about National Projects could be found on the official web site http://www.rost.ru/ 130
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The realization of the first aspect of the agro-industrial project was expected to raise the profitability of animal husbandry, to lead to the modernisation of operating cattle-breeding complexes (farms), and to give birth to new productive capacities. These goals could be reached through increasing the accessibility of long-term credits (up to 8 years), growth of deliveries pedigree cattle, as well as increasing the accessibility of machinery and equipment for animal husbandry through federal leasing, etc. However, preferential loans will not help the development of animal husbandry in the current situation of strong disparity of prices. The combination of the low prices of agricultural products on the market with the high price for energy does not allow cattle-breeding complexes to work with profit. Also, there are many types of subsidies from the federal and regional budgets for the production of different kinds of agricultural products; however, they cannot solve the problem of unprofitability of agricultural production, because these subsidies only add up to 15 kopecks per rouble of the finished product. Together with the huge price disparity it is actually an imperceptible support.
The second part of the project is aimed at increasing in volume the production of family farms and of the personal subsidiary plots at the expense of reduction in interest rate of the credit resources and also aimed at the creation of a network of agricultural consumer cooperatives for purchasing, supplying-selling, processing and crediting. The realization of the third aspect will provide accessible housing for young specialists (and their families) in rural areas and thus create preconditions for having effective skills potential in agriculture.
Since 2008 Priority National Projects have been transformed into Federal Target Programmes. Currently there is a federal programme for the development of agriculture till 2010. The Nizhniy Novgorod Region actively participates in the realization of federal programmes. The programme “Strategy for the development of the Nizhniy Novgorod region till 2020” has been accepted. It defines the problems of the rural areas and the necessary efforts for overcoming them.
Solution to the problem of crediting of agricultural producers was offered in the Nizhniy Novgorod region in 1998 in the form of subsidies for interest rate repayment. Promstroibank and the Savings Bank were the first to start realisation of the programme.
131
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The adviser of the Minister of Agriculture and food resources of the Nizhniy Novgorod region notes that “This programme is working in our region. Since 2000 Russia has included this mechanism of crediting, subsidising of the interest rate at the expense of budget means. Nowadays thanks to this programme we receive about 7-8 billion roubles for agricultural production. We have begun with one-year credits, then for three years, then five years. Now we have eight and ten years' credits”. However, despite existence of these programmes and projects, the situation in agriculture remains difficult and many vital issues are still unsolved.
The history of the Credit cooperative The first stage: the innovation concept (2005 — early 2006)
The contemporary period of development of the cooperation system in Russia started after launching the national priority project “Development of the Agroindustiral Complex” with its second subproject “Facilitating development of small forms of economy” declared by the President of the Russian Federation. In order to stabilize household plots (HP) and family farms (FH) financially, the proposition of development of the system of agricultural credit cooperation, as well as establishment and development of the network of agricultural consumers’ cooperatives dealing with supply, sell and processing of agricultural production was made.
Formation of agricultural cooperation in Nizhny Novgorod region demonstrates an example of “top-down” social innovation since the program aimed at solving certain problems of rural areas was ratified by federal and regional authorities and was being carried out in the frameworks of a national priority project. The state took a responsibility of stimulating the establishment and support activity of credit cooperatives through allocation of funds from federal and regional budgets. The purpose of allocation was to establish fixed assets and subsidise the interest rate on credits allocated to the cooperative itself as well as to its members.
At the first stage, in December 2005 first two agricultural credit consumers’ cooperatives (cooperatives of the first level) were registered in Nizhny Novgorod region. In the following period 15 more cooperatives of the first level were established in the oblast’.
132
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The second stage: implementation of the concept, development of a social partnership network (March 2006 – middle 2007)
National projects created definite conditions for establishment of cooperatives. The agricultural credit cooperative “Kerzhaki” was established in March 2006 in the frameworks of the national priority project “Development of the Agroindustrial Complex”. By the decree of the Government of Nizhny Novgorod region a provision was ratified on financial support for agricultural credit cooperatives. Semenov Rural Advisory Centre, which had a contract on implementation of the concept with the Ministry of Agriculture, took responsibility for administrative work on establishment of the agricultural credit cooperative.
“We, executives, precisely implement those decision made by superior organizations. They made a decision to establish cooperation and we implement it”, says a consultant of Rural Advisory Centre (interview 23).
Thirty million roubles were allocated from the regional budget for establishment of cooperatives’ founding capital. Namely, the co-operative “Kerzhaki” obtained a little over two million roubles. The sum was to be used for establishment of registered capital and allocation of loans. At the initial stage the cooperative consisted of 31 members and funding of cooperatives was to be calculated at a rate of 100 thousand roubles per each member. However, at that stage the cooperative “Kerzhaki”, as well as many other cooperatives in the region, obtained some one million roubles less, which definitely reduced opportunities for credit allocation.
At that stage Semenov Rural Advisory Centre played an important role in organization of the cooperative while continuing its collaboration with the cooperative on the whole number of issues. The cooperative was getting engaged in a social partnership network and started communicating with the village- and district administrations, banks and regional authorities. A number of cooperative members was growing. By the middle of 2007, the cooperative had already 46 members, three of whom were farmers.
The third stage: amalgamation of co-operatives (2007- )
The lack of operating assets and capacities for satisfying demand of co-operative members for credits with available resources necessitated elaboration of a new development strategy. Local credit cooperatives with similar problems that were appearing in many districts of 133
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Nizhny Novgorod oblast’ required amalgamation of first level co-operatives. A decision was made on establishment of the second level cooperative “Nizhegorodskiy” which would act as a guarantor for credits obtained by first level credit cooperatives from banks. It included all 17 cooperatives each of which contributed approximately 100 thousand roubles in establishment of the registered capital. In order to support second level of agricultural credit cooperative 30 million roubles were allocated from the provincial budget, to be sent as a pledge to Rossel’khozbank for obtaining credits. From that moment relationships between the credit cooperative and Rossel’khozbank have been aggravating. The immediate reason for aggravation was that Rossel’khozbank agreed to allocate credits to cooperatives on extremely unfavourable conditions.
“For already the second year we have not been able to use these funds because the conditions which Rossel’khozbank proposes are unacceptable to us”, points out the director of the co-operative “Kerzhaki”. “In fact, they are running counter to the decree of the Government because the term of credit allocation in Rossel’khozbank is one year and four months without a delay in payment at 12% of annual interest. In addition, according to decrees, use of credits for a specified purpose varies from two to 8 years. Such short term is not considering the length of technological cycle of agricultural production and therefore does not allow co-operative members to use a credit. This is a very short term. A credit should be obtained and repaid practically at once. In addition, if, for instance, you deal with cattle, a bull-calf cannot be raised in a year and a half. And the interest rate does not allow using a credit due to unprofitability of servicing this credit. For the present day this issue is quite acute” (interview 24).
Thus, difficulties with funding which started at the stage of the concept implementation have been periodically revealing themselves in the cooperative, which by that time had already won a good reputation among rural population in the district. The most probable reason is a failure of regional authorities to understand importance of the credit cooperative as a means of solving financial problems of household plots and family farms and thereby facilitating financial stability and economic development of small-scale rural economy. In this regard, the evaluation of credit cooperatives by the head of a department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Resources of Nizhegorodskaia Oblast’ is quite illustrative. In his
134
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
opinion credit cooperatives are established to give employment for people and for reduction of unemployment more than to improve the situation in rural areas.
The goals of the Credit cooperative and the formation of partnership
According to the cooperative charter, its main goal is “mutual crediting of cooperative members and associate members based on their accumulated shares and other fees, as well as on other co-operative’s own assets and through raising other organizations’ funds”. The cooperative also sets a goal of providing advisory services to its members.
Internal actors: members of credit cooperative, local population as potential members of cooperative, rural advisory centre, village administrations.
External actors: federal and regional levels of authority, which creates a legislative basis of activity of cooperative, the banks which are giving out credits to agricultural producers (Rosselhozbank and the Savings Bank).
The closest collaboration takes place at the level “cooperative-village administration” which is determined by particularities of the cooperative work and the principle of credit allocation. A cooperative, which does not require any pledge and advances maximally credit allocation, should trust in its borrower. The trust can be gained with the help of village administrations which give the cooperative a reference to each of its members and evaluate solvency of borrowers and goals of obtaining credits. This is possible because village administrations know each resident on the territory lying within their jurisdiction and know a lot about their personal qualities, household and family. Such collaboration is important both for the co-operative and the village administration: the cooperative gains trust in its members and the administration provides support to local residents.
We collaborate closely with many administrations. Through local administrations we obtain information on extent to which a person is able to develop this cooperation, how seriously he attends to his household, and what kind of family he has, which opportunities and needs he faces. The village administration knows each of its residents so that it would be very difficult to work without them and their involvement (interview 37).
135
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social partnership relationships are much less dense between the credit cooperative and the district and regional authorities. Assistance in purchase of office equipment provided by the province at the stage of the cooperative establishment did not lead to the subsequent collaboration. The district administration has neither provided any specific assistance to the cooperative.
Semenov Rural Advisory Centre has rather ambiguous status in this classification. The cooperative “Kerzhaki” was established directly on the basis of Semenov Advisory Centre. Dealing with immediate organization of the cooperative and providing consultancy support to it members, Centre can be legitimately related to internal actors of the cooperative. “We have been tracing its activity, supporting and consulting it for already the second year”, points the director of Semenov Advisory Centre (interview 37). Occupying such position, the Centre established close partnership relations with the cooperative, thus, having improved the level of services provided to the cooperative members.
“There is a personal contact with each cooperative member, as well as expediency in obtaining a credit here. Having arrived to our office, a person quickly obtains a credit; he receives a qualified consultancy and a mini business plan on the same day. If a credit was allocated by an agricultural bank and that’s it, then we trace the work, consult and provide assistance until production is sold. The Centre consults on where to buy fodder, at which price, where livestock can be bought and where it can be sold. There is a minimal risk for a client here” (interview 37).
The factor of individual relationships between employees of these organizations has played a significant role in strengthening partnership relations between the credit cooperation and the Centre. Occupying neighbouring offices and working together for already several years, employees of the cooperative and the Centre solve many tasks jointly and consult each other on a wide range of issues.
It should be noted that Semenov Advisory Centre occupies a key position in the social partnership system of Semenov District serving as a connecting link between rural population and different organizations and authorities at different levels. People turn here for assistance in settlement of specific issues and the consultancy centre, in its turn, attracts resources for other organizations, in particular, the credit cooperative. Obtaining a credit, people are also
136
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
provided consultancy support on drafting and application of a business plan, on sale of production, purchase of fodder and equipment, etc.
The law causes some difficulties in relation between credit cooperatives and state banks from which cooperatives can obtain credits. The bank’s approach to the process of agricultural industry credit allocation is stricter and more formalized. Paying much more attention to its own security and insuring itself against non-returned credits, the bank complicates the crediting procedure and therefore it is more difficult to obtain a credit from bank than from credit cooperative. Any bank as a commercial organization has a primary aim of receiving a profit. In contrast the cooperative is a non-commercial organization and declares the settlement of problems faced by its members through mutual crediting as its main goal. With a small number of cooperative members and their good acquaintance with each other, relationships are based rather on trust in its members than on strict observance of formalities. Virtually anyone who has a plot of land for organization of a household plot and a positive reference from the village administration can become a cooperative member. The latter requirement is quite important for establishment of trusting relation of a cooperative to its new member. Simplicity of obtaining a credit in a cooperative is connected with the fact that no collateral is required. Repayment of a credit is guaranteed by a guarantor who can be represented even by a borrower’s close relative. According to cooperative employees, this system works rather precisely and there have been practically no any cases of unreturned credits in the period of existence of the co-operative “Kerzhaki”.
“We don’t have non-returns. Everyone pays according to a schedule. They pay conscientiously, although, our accounts have been checked by the office of the public prosecutor for quite a lot of times in terms of the end use [of assets]. For co- operatives to develop, a precise state policy on this issue is required: at the moment state money is needed, and then all this will start working independently” (interview 30).
A bank as a large bureaucratic commercial organization cannot accept such kind of relationships. Then it is not surprising that peasants prefer to use co-operative services and apply to banks for credits only in emergency cases. Implementation of similar kind of activity but which is different in means or realization, causes misunderstandings and negative
137
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
evaluations of each other’s work between credit co-operatives and banks and complicate interaction between these two organizations.
Thus, only relations between the co-operative, the Advisory Centre, village administrations and local population can be referred to as partnership relations. Other actors are less interested in partnership with the co-operative and underestimate its role in development of rural territories of the district.
Federal authority Regional authority
District authority Banks Credit cooperative
Local population RAC
Rural authority
Figure 15: Central actors of the Credit cooperative
138
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
International level
National level Federal authority
Regional level Regional authority Rosselkhozbank Saving bank
RAC District authority Rosselkhozbank District level
Saving bank Credit cooperative
Settlement level Local population Rural authority
Figure 16: The network of the Credit cooperative
Achievements and obstacles
The credit cooperative has helped to many rural inhabitants to overcome the difficulties associated with shortage of financial resources for maintaining and developing the private farm or household plot. Members of cooperative have had a confidence that at occurrence of financial difficulties they can obtain the cheap credit in a short period of time, and that they should not sell any part of their livestock or seeds, which can be a source of profit in the future. Thus, solving the problems of financial confidence of cooperative members is a significant factor for the development of small forms of agro-production in rural areas.
“We have almost 50 members of cooperative. They have successfully developed own farm or household plot. Other people look at them, and they have a desire... Who wants to work, that tries to be a member of cooperative”, the director of credit cooperative argues (interview 25).
As the level of incomes is extremely low in rural areas, not all interested persons have an opportunity to start to be engaged in animal husbandry. For many rural residents even the 139
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
purchasing cow is inaccessible because a cow costs about 25 thousand roubles (approx. 660 EUR). With the appearance of cooperative peasants have a possibility to handle this problem.
From the moment of formation the cooperative has actively started to carry out the functions. For 2006-2007 it has been given out credits for the sum of 3,708 million roubles. It has positively affected at the level of an agricultural production among members of cooperative. For July 2007 it has been realised agricultural products on 10 million roubles. Therefore, credit cooperative is really capable to change level of agricultural production under conditions of availability of sufficient financial resources.
However, a serious problem of cooperative, which considerably interferes with achievement of its main objectives, is shortage of turnaround financial resources. According to the director of cooperative, the requirement for money exceeds almost four times resources available today. As a result, the cooperative has to limit number of the members and the amount of given out credits and they do not have possibility to give out large credits.
The agricultural credit cooperative, as it was planned initially, should exist in a close connection with processing cooperative in order to have possibility for realisation of agricultural production. This idea has not been implemented and nowadays it represents a big obstacle in the development of small forms of agro-producers in rural areas.
The credit cooperative satisfies requirements of local population for cheap credits, promoting increasing level of an agricultural production. However, this apparently positive process, leads in a reality to serious problems when the peasant cannot sell the production with realistic prices. According to the director of cooperative "Kerzhaki", a problem with selling arises because the system of cooperatives does not work completely.
For today credit cooperatives already operate, but this process is not finished yet. Processing cooperatives do not work yet. There is a problem in meat realisation. We think that this problem will be solved, when these cooperatives will start to work (interview 30).
In some districts of Nizhny Novgorod oblast’ cooperatives are united: the chairman of credit cooperative is also the chairman of processing cooperative. Such system allows building more close connections between these organisations and solving more effectively the existing
140
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
marketing problems. In Semenov district the processing cooperative was registered but has not started to work yet.
According to workers of cooperative and rural advisory centre the reason is the absence of such leader who could undertake the organisation and be the leader in this cooperative. Another problem is the absence of material conditions for creation of processing cooperative. It is necessary to create material base for cooperative: a premise, machinery, equipment, etc. Such infrastructure does not exist and there are not enough financial resources for creation of new infrastructure, although there is a opportunity to obtain the credit about 10 million roubles for creation of such cooperative.
A the serious problem which interferes the development of cooperative is the misjudgement by authority and banks about the importance of cooperative and their activity in supporting of small agro-producers. This fact creates difficulties in functioning of cooperative and difficulties in receiving bank credits.
Agricultural credit cooperative "Kerzhaki" was created within the framework of realisation of the National Project “Development of agro-industrial complex”. The state was obliged to keep development credit and consumers' cooperatives; however the necessary help to cooperatives has not been rendered. The state financial support of cooperatives, directed through Rosselhozbank, leads the fact that the bank starts to lay down their own conditions for credits, which cannot satisfy a management of cooperatives. Creation of cooperative of the second level has not led to the solution of the problem. The future of the cooperative "Kerzhaki", as well as other cooperatives of the oblast’, depends on, how effectively cooperatives can build relations with banks and with regional and regional authorities and try to find local resources.
Nowadays the cooperative is perceived neither by the authority, nor by banks as an important and significant subject of rural economy. In our opinion, the main reason of such situation is low level of partnership relations between cooperatives from the one hand, and banks and the state structures, on the other hand.
However, at local level the importance of credit cooperation is realised and cooperatives exist in many districts of Nizhny Novgorod oblast’. In the beginning of 2007 in the Nizhniy Novgorod region there were 17 credit cooperatives with share fund of 10 820 800 RUB
141
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
(approx. 285 000 EUR) with 598 members. In 2006 the total sum of the given out loans was 49 131000 RUB (approx. 130 000 EUR) (Mamedov, 2006 ).
Credit cooperatives have united into cooperative of the second level and now there is a plan of creation of cooperative of the third level. At the All-Russia forum of agricultural consumers' cooperatives it was offered to cooperative "Nizhniy Novgorod" to enter the Union «National credit». Cooperative movement grows gradually, but without active state support at financial and legislative level there are very limited possibilities for further development.
At the moment the cooperative "Kerzhaki" functions on self-supporting base and gets minimum earnings from its own activity. But even at such state of affairs the members of cooperative assert that without cooperative it would be difficult to keep and develop the farm production in modern conditions.
Credit cooperative as a social innovation
According to the definition of a social innovationgiven in article F. Moulaert, F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw, S. González (2005, 1976), agricultural credit cooperative "Kerzhaki" is an innovation. First, it is an innovation because creation of cooperative has led to the satisfaction of requirement for cheap credits for small forms of agro-producers. The cooperative also can be considered as a social innovation in the second sense as it has led to formation of new social group of members of cooperative, which have a possibility to become closely acquainted with each other and to establish mutually advantageous partner relations.
However, the most significant aspect of credit cooperative as social innovation is the possibility of increase access of villagers to the cheap credit resources. Before creation of cooperative credits could be received only from the Rosselhozbank or the Savings Bank, but the considerable quantity of necessary documents, obligation for collaterals and long period of consideration of documents created considerable difficulties for rural residents. In such a situation the credit cooperative urged to solve a problem of availability of credits for the members.
As the director Semenov rural advisory centre marked “it is possible to consider creation of cooperative as an innovation because before we do not have anything similar. In many other regions credit and consumers' cooperatives has been developed for a long time, there was a
142
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
corresponding support of regional administrations. But in our region it started just last year and for us it is innovation” (interview 4).
Development of social partnership in Russia and experiences in Semenov district
The idea of social partnership began to develop actively in Russia at the beginning of 1990ies, mainly in the field of labour relations. According to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, the term “social partnership” is understood as a “system of mutual relations between workers (the representatives of workers), employers (the representatives of employers), public authorities, organs of local authorities, directed on maintenance the coordination of interests of workers and employers concerning regulation of labour relations and other relations directly related with them”29. Public authorities are not the sides of social partnership, if they are not employers. This definition of social partnership is rather narrow and can be used only in the field of labour relations.
The beginning to legal fastening of idea of social partnership in the field of labour relations was put by the Decree of the President of RSFSR “About social partnership and the permission of labour disputes (conflicts)” (from 15.11.91). It was recognized a necessity « at republican level to enter into practice of annual general agreements on socio-economic questions between Government of the RSFSR, representatives of trade unions and businessmen»; also it was remarked an expediency “to conclude trilateral branch tariff agreements between the organs of state administration, trade unions and representatives of owners (employers) since 1991”.
A republican trilateral commission was created for consideration and conclusion of general and branch tariff agreements and settlement of labour disputes (conflicts); however, there was a lack of clear mechanisms of mutually beneficial partnership.
The first regional agreement was signed in the Perm region in 1992 and in next year a trilateral commission was created. During subsequent five years the process of distribution of practice of signing of similar agreements went across Russia. A distinctive feature in the development of social partnership at regional level was that in most regions since 1991 and
29 See ɌɪɭɞɨɜɨɣɤɨɞɟɤɫɊɎʋ197-ɎɁɨɬ 30.12.2001. – ɑ. 2. – Ɋɚɡɞɟɥ II. – Ƚɥ. 3. – ɋɬ. 23. 143
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
during next three-four years the process carried bilateral character, involved only the relations between trade unions and state. Employers did not participate in such agreements.
At regional level, beginning of partner relations lagged behind the federal level. For instance in the Novgorod region the bilateral relations between the state and trade unions outgrew into trilateral only in 1995. In that year Regional Duma adopted Statute “On trilateral commission”; law “On social partnership” appeared only in 1997.
As some researchers note, “collective agreements on the Russian enterprises took place already in Soviet time; however initiative of their preparation always belonged to administration of enterprises. After the management of the enterprises has ceased to represent to the workers traditional guarantees, the initiative of preparation of collective agreements and carrying out of contractual campaigns has passed to trade unions” (Borisov, 2001, 58).
The first steps on development of social partnership in the districts of Nizhny Novgorod oblast’ were done in 1995, when trilateral agreements were concluded between Governor of the region, head of administration of district and industrial enterprises. Each enterprise, signing of similar agreement, had to execute certain requirements on the increase of salary of workers and increase of production amounts, and the regional government, from its side, promised to give to enterprises the privilege in question of income taxes, coming into regional budget. As the head of the Economic and Forecasting Department of Semenov district marked during an interview, these agreements were concluded by 12-13 major enterprises of district. They executed all of the prescribed requirements, but they did not get the promised privileges. Absence of the fixed mechanisms of realization of agreements and sanctions in case of non-fulfilment brought to that in two years the practice of such agreements has been stopped.
After a long break the idea of social partnership has been revived at local level. Since 2003, Administration of Semenov district, Administration of Semenov city and every person interested to participate in social partnership, even an individual businessman, began to conclude an agreement about a socio-economic cooperation. Semenov district is one of the first to open practices of concluding similar agreements which do not exist in all districts of Nizhny Novgorod region.
144
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The basic idea of agreement is to use the possibility of district administration to set low coefficients on taxes, entering district budget. Reduction of taxes is a major stimulus for entrepreneurs to conclude such agreements which are built on the basis of mutually beneficial collaboration. The basic participants of agreement are mainly entrepreneurs from the retail and transportations, unlike the previous agreements with Governor, which were counted on big industrial enterprises.
For district authority an agreement solves three tasks: accomplishment of the territory, increase of salary of workers and increase of volume of the tax entering district budget. In this connection there are requirements for entrepreneurs on providing of accomplishment of the territory, removal of hard domestic wastes. Besides, in accordance with the agreement, entrepreneurs are obligated to take part in the social programs and in the solving of social problems in the district which effectively extends practice of social partnership out from the limited sphere of labour relations.
A next important requirement is the establishment of level of wage for employees at least in one and a half times higher than minimum living wage in the district. In the first half of the year 2008 minimum is 6100 RUR (approx. 160 EUR), in the second half of the year 2008 it is 6800 RUR (approx. 180 EUR) per month. District authority accurately watches that growth of level of wages made not less than 24-26 % a year. It is possible to reach already throughout the third year. This requirement promotes also to the implementing of the third task: increasing tax revenue for district budget. Here is direct dependence: higher salary provides more tax deductions.
Major taxes, entering district budget, are the united tax on the profit and tax on the profits of physical persons. There are also taxes on land and property, but their share in a district budget is insignificant. Entrepreneurs who made the agreement use special term. Administration sets a lowering coefficient on the united tax on the profit, providing the small rate of growth of tax (approximately 4 – 5 % per year). For comparison, for those, who do not sign an agreement, growth of tax is approximately 40 % per year. From this point of view it is more advantageous to the entrepreneurs to set high salary for workers, than to pay huge taxes. It is a reason, why amount of entrepreneurs concluded agreements grows every year.
145
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Except tax privileges the district authority also renders for entrepreneurs singing agreement information and consulting support, assists in the solving of questions of business crediting, gives possibility to participate in the district program of socio-economic development and regional special target programmes, assists in advertising of the products by bringing into exhibition. As the head of the Economic and Forecasting Department of Semenov district marked during an interview the important task of agreements is that enterprises «went out from shadow». And this task is successfully implemented. About 300 similar agreements were concluded in 2007 (it is a lit bit less than a half from the total amount of retail outlets in the district).
An agreement on socio-economic collaboration is concluded for one year. But an entrepreneur is obligated to give information about implementation of agreement four times a year. Perfection of mechanism, prescribed in an agreement, would be carried out in the direction of increase of privileges on other taxes which entrepreneurs pay, but it cannot be done only at district level. As it has been marked, taxes on land and property also enter district budget, but their volume in the profits of budget is too small and therefore it makes no sense to set privileges to them.
Functioning of mechanism of socio-economic collaboration between small business and authority can successfully be carried out on local (district) level, as we can see in the example of Semenov district. However, the development and perfection of this mechanism is possible only on condition that regional and federal governments are willing to take active part in it. It is important even because the tax entering regional and federal budgets can be regulated only by the decisions of the appropriate level.
Thus, practice of making of an agreement on socio-economic cooperation in Semenov district is an attempt to create the working mechanism for the realization of idea of social partnership between authority and business for the solving of concrete social problems in the district. This mechanism demands, certainly, greater attention from regional and federal levels, but even now it giving quite good results.
146
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Summary of Russian case study
Children’s Shelter Sheep Project Credit cooperative
Bottom-up The director of the shelter was one of initiators of creation of children shelter. This idea was - - supported by a head of district administration.
Top-down The idea of this Credit cooperative project came from was created within Nizhny Novgorod the framework of consulting centre and realisation of the has been copied from National Project - the previous project “Development of made by Heifer agro-industrial International in the complex”. region.
Local Creation of shelter is very There are need to There is a problem of social important in the situation increase of livestock a shortage of needs when there are 15586 orphans in villages and financial resources and children without parents increase of and difficulties of care in Nizhny Novgorod employment of rural getting of credits for oblast’. The shelter solves a population. rural inhabitants. serious social problem: taking care of children who are without parental support, satisfying both requirements of children, and requirements of a society for children care. Besides, shelter takes care about parents too helping them to find job, take a medical treatment against alcohol, etc.
Local Reduction amount of “street Impact is very small. Impact is small. social children”, returning them to The task of the project There is limited impacts “normal life”, protection of is self-employment of amount of members families. Besides, there are local population. But of credit cooperative. new working places for local not so many people But for those, who
147
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
inhabitants. are participating in it. can get cheap credit it is possibility to develop own agro- production, to improve life of rural residents.
Local Budget of the shelter was 1,93 People have more Need for searching of Resources mln RUR and share of local contacts with rural local resources was (district) budget was 58,6 %. advisory centre, discussed many Besides, there were financial employment office, times, but no real resources of local business. local administration steps were made. Informational resources both village and Informational were/are provided by RAC. district levels resources were/are Human resources are (information provided by RAC. important to. resources). Besides, villages through credit cooperative have got loans for sheep rising (financial resources).
External Fund of local Thirty million resources External resources are mainly community “Partner’s roubles were financial – from regional council” from Nizhny allocated from the budget and sponsors Novgorod financed regional budget for (business) or from funds this project. establishment of (Saint Serafim Sarovsky and cooperatives’ Partners’ council). Besides, opening capital. administrative support from Cooperative is all the regional authority. time is waiting for external resources.
Empower For children: they (can) feel Getting small credits that there is alternatives in the gives to rural ment life outside the family residents no only way difficulties, they can get some to survive, but the agricultural skills, which will filling of own help them in the future to find - forces/power to own way in the life. improve own/family life. For parents: it is chance to improve own life
For community: initiative of 148
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the shelter gives good example of active village life
Partnership The most active local actors: There are two main The most active (actors employment centre, Centre of actors: Employment relations are between from social protection, and Rural centre, who selected cooperative, rural different advisory centre. unemployed for the advisory centre, sectors) project and Rural village Besides, other actors were advisory centre, administrations and attracted to this partnership which bought sheep local population. from both local and regional and organized training
levels: there are public courses for the authority (Ministry of members of the Agriculture, department of project. work, social protection of population and employment, local (district) administration), enterprises as sponsors, Nizhny Novgorod consulting centre as NGO, and local population.
Social Cooperative has led inclusion to some change of The shelter adapts homeless social relations in children for normal conditions rural areas, to of a social life and integrates formation of new them into society. Children social group of become full members of a members of society, visiting a kindergarten - cooperative, which and school, participating in have a possibility to various cultural and sports become closely actions. Besides, parents of acquainted with each such children have a chance other, to establish for normal life. mutually advantageous partner relations.
Diffusion One could argue that 17 cooperatives were of the project is in created in the Nizhny innovation - danger to “dry up” if Novgorod region. people continue to have difficulties with
149
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
their sheep (not bringing off-spring, getting ill because over-feeding, etc). Probably, this sheep project will continue to work as small-scale project for some years.
Other, The fund-raising initiative is notes important part of the shelter activity.
On the one hand, temporality of shelter activity sometimes is not good for children, who have to return to own family or come to children house. On the other hand, longer stay of a child in the shelter could be institutionalised practice for some families and they will not take care about own children at all.
150
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social innovations in Lithuania
Methodological approach and cases
Methodological approach for analyzing social innovations in Lithuanian local communities is based on the one presented by Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw, González (2005) – qualitative analysis of “good practice” cases. In Lithuania two small rural townships Balninkai and Dargaiciai were selected as case studies. The selection was based on recommendations during expert interviews. The interviewed experts considered both projects as innovative.
Dargaiciai in the Siauliai District is an ethnographic village, which was selected as an illustration of new services in rural settlements. By developing rural tourism, the project in the village aims at reducing social exclusion and at increasing the well-being of the rural residents.
The case of Balninkai in Moletai District was chosen as an example of new education courses for rural residents. The project has arranged computer and internet literacy courses in this rural village, in order to make it easier for the rural residents to participate actively in the life of the village and to further empower them.
Dargaiciai ethnographic village
Dargaiciai is a small rural village in the Siauliai district, near the township of Gruzdziai. The village has 32 homesteads and 44-48 residents. The village was established in 1649. The oldest house is 200 years old. The houses represent examples of wooden architecture from 18th century. The village has preserved the old structure of a traditional one-street village; it has not changed since the 17th century, all homesteads are near the only street of the village.
The public organization “Dargaiciai Community Centre” was established in 2003, and it has set a goal to create an ethnographic village which would be attractive to tourists. The first input to the idea of an ethnographic village came from the leader of the Community Centre, when she bought a homestead in the Dargaiciai village. This primary initiative was encouraged by the Department of Culture in the Siauliai District Municipality, as the department provided information from its archives.
151
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Together with the Department of Culture in the Siauliai District Municipality, the leader of the Community Centre developed the idea of how to foster social life in this small rural village. She was working on a project ”Dargaiciai – the village that has survived through the centuries“ in order to include the Dargaiciai village into the List of Immovable Cultural Values of the Republic of Lithuania.
There are a lot of archival materials concerning the village. The first ethnographic expedition to the village was made in 1941. All the material that was collected during that expedition is preserved and stored at Aušros Museum in Šiauliai. Unfortunately, material collected during the 1976 expedition has not survived.
We are rich in ethnographic material... [the leader of the Community Centre said] The idea to restore old traditions and customs arose after studying it. And now we have restarted the tradition to celebrate the rituals of the First Pasturage when cattle are brought out to pasture for the first time after winter.
In 2007 Dargaiciai community started the preparation of the documents to apply for the inclusion of the Dargaiciai village into the List of Immovable Cultural Values of the Republic of Lithuania as an Urban Park (Reservation).
The Dargaiciai village is a kind of a living museum. The old wooden architecture and real people, living the daily life of rural residents – that is a composition which is thought to be attractive to tourists. The main attractions are:
x unique architecture (200-year-old buildings that are still used for living); x celebration of traditional festivals (such as St. George’s day) with old customs and ceremonies (like visiting winter crop in spring or digging bread into field for good future yield); x traditional meals (recipes from 200 years ago – soup baršþiai and baked herrings).
Apart from living in the houses, the villagers usually prepare all these events and meals for the tourists, who are interested in old architecture, animals and traditional local meals. As the brochure for tourists promises, the main idea of this project ”is a journey through a 200-year- old village, which presents an ethnic, architectural and culinary heritage“.
152
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 9: A view from Dargaiciai ethnographic village (Photo: Regina Lemežienơ 2006, quoted from http://ejournal.emokykla.lt/muziejus45/media/Dargai2iai/)
The main means of spreading information were: (1) Articles in regional newspapers (such as “Šiauliu krastas”) or specific newspapers (such as the newspaper of the Catholic Church of Lithuania “Baznycios zinios”), (2) Regional TV (the community has films in DVD format to promote their idea); (3) Brochure for the tourists ’Dargaiþiai. Kaimas išlikĊs nuo amžiǐ’ (4) Information on the internet (the Community Centre has its own website and it also uses links to other websites). The scheme of the social innovation development is presented in figure 17.
153
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
time Department of culture, Specialists of Šiauliai district municipality ethno-culture
Information about archival materials
INNOVATOR:Leader of the BIRTH OF AN INNOVATIVE IDEA: Community Centre The development of Dargaiciai as
2003 Information INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE about idea INNOVATIVE IDEA:
Establishment of Dargaiciai ADOPTORS:
Dargaiciai dwellers DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL INIZHNY NOVGORODOVATION: 1st stage
Social innovation development:
- In the initial stage: clear vision when and how the idea will be promoted further
Social partnership of actors: st - the innovator has major role in the development of social innovation. The innovator 1 shares responsibility and initiative of further development of social innovation with inter- local community. view DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL 2008 innovation NOVGORODOVATION:
Social innovation development:
- Still in the beginning phase; no assumption when and how the idea would be promoted further
- Segmentation of social innovation: organization of tourism went to private business; celebration of festivals still is public and organized by local community.
Social partnership of actors:
- The innovator has a central role in the development of the social innovation. The innovator has taken all responsibility and initiative of the further development of the social innovation 2nd interview 2009
Figure 17: The scheme of social innovation development in the Dargaiciai community
154
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In the process of social innovation development several stages could be distinguished:
x The starting position for the implementation of the social innovation was positive (up to 2003). The village has old traditions and preserved old wooden architecture. Local residents remember and have the know-how for the implementation of this social innovation. x The institutionalization of the innovative idea took place through the establishment of the Dargaiciai Community Centre (in 2003). x The development of the social innovation. This stage could be divided into 2 periods: 1st period - “flourishing“ (2004 – beginning 2008) and 2nd period - “droop“ (end 2008).
Interviews revealed different views of the idea – it is evident that in the development of the social innovation there was another stage, which unfortunately should be called a descent. Reflecting on the activities of 2008, the leader of the Dargaiciai community organization said:
Things are going quite well… We had our annual festivals, i.e. St. George’s day, and Handicrafts Festival. Everything is better because we improve, gain experience. We would like to proceed with this activity further, next year, but the economic crisis already has had the impact… we think that we will have financial difficulties.
There are different types of actors that shape the process of a social innovation, and there are several levels of action to be taken into account: village, municipal and district level (see figure 18):
On the village or settlement level, the most important actor is the innovator. In this case the innovator is the leader of the Community Centre in Dargaiciai. She is 43 years old, has a higher education diploma in economics, and she has graduated from the Siauliai University. During the research she worked at the Siauliai Professional Education Centre. She is a teacher and lectures in bookkeeping (accountancy). She also has a double degree from the Siauliai Music Conservatoire. Therefore she feels very close to art and ethnography. She and her husband bought a house in the Dargaiciai village. As she was very active participating in the life of the village, she became the leader of the recently established Community Centre.
155
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
She did not move to Dargaiciai as a permanent resident, but spends her summers in the village and goes back to Siauliai for the winter.
Unfortunately, there is no evident support for the ethnographic village project from the local (neighbourhood) administration (seniunija). According to the leader of the Community Centre,
“Local government sees the community leaders as competitors, not as partners”.
The position of the seniunija is problematic, because it doesn’t have any funding of its own but is financially absolutely dependant on the higher levels of administration. On the contrary, a local project may get its own funding and be able to realize plans which are more or less on the responsibility of seniunija.
A similar problem is recorded by Aine Macken Walsh in her study about Tulpiakiemi’s Community Organization and the contradictions between the old local administration and the new project based community (Macken Walsh 2007, 204-5).
On the local community level, the idea was in the beginning supported by the Dargaiciai dwellers. As one dweller of the Dargaiciai village said,
…that is a very good idea. Life was boring here… people are rather old, it is very difficult for them to do agricultural work… Thus the idea to present us as a piece of national Lithuanian culture is perfect.
In 2008 the situation was quite different also on the community level. The leader of Community Centre in Dargaiciai told that shared responsibility is not good:
When the community owns a business – there is little responsibility. Thus it became obvious that someone has to take responsibility for the business – you cannot say to tourists that today I have a headache or have no time… Thus organizing tourism- related activities went into private hands…
The reason was seen to be the passivity of the people. Not all Dargaiciai dwellers were willing to maintain and develop the idea, and some of them were just indifferent to it.
On the district level, the main actor is the Siauliai district municipality. In 2007 the leader of the Community Centre of Dargaiciai mentioned that the community had received support 156
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
from the Siauliai district municipality, “they give financial support to our events, helped us with diving advice…” The following are two examples of the financial support which was given:
(1) In 2003 the Ministry of Culture supported the Siauliai Centre of Culture with 5000 litas (about 1500 Euros) the project ‘Dargaiciai – the village that has survived through centuries’.
(2) In 2003 the Ministry of Culture supported Dargaiciai Community Centre with 1000 litas (about 300 Euros) for the cycle of projects Šviežia duona parơjo (Hot bread has come). In 2008 the situation was quite different. “Support is given in ‘good words’, but not in material things”, said the leader of the Dargaiciai Community Centre.
District level District authority
Dargaiciai community centre Settlement level Local population
Public (municipal) sector Local community Third sector
Figure 18: Central actors of the Dargaiciai community
Actors that do not directly participate in the development of the innovation, but are nevertheless very important for its success are the tourists. Tourists consist of both Lithuanian and foreign people. Groups of foreign visitors usually come to the village in the context of an agreement between the Dargaiciai community and local tourism companies. Lithuanian youth groups also come quite often; they are usually groups of school children.
Goals of innovation
The manifested idea of the studied innovation was to create a unique image of an ethnographic one-street village in order to attract tourists. The aims of this innovation are to 157
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
create opportunities to increase tourism in order to provide employment for the village residents using as an additional asset the uniqueness of their village (see figure 19).
MANIFESTED IDEA The development of Dargaiciai LATENT IDEA as an ethnographic village LATENT IDEA Village, Dwellers could live employing the uniqueness of attractive to tourists their village
Unique Celebration of architecture traditional festivals with old customs and ceremonies
Figure 19: The idea of social innovation development in Dargaiciai
The fundamental principles and aims of the innovation are the following:
x to actively involve the members (of the community) in the life of the village community; x to encourage positive feedback (i.e. financial support from the State or from private funds; increased community life; profit for the residents from handicrafts) from the implemented social innovation.
The original idea aimed at several things. As the leader of the Community Centre said during an interview, the idea was:
“…to preserve the village as it was, as it is now, with old customs, with old traditions and rituals, to preserve it for future generations…To show what we have, not only to the Lithuanian tourists, but also to foreign tourists… what we have and where the roots of our Lithuanian identity are”. 158
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Results and problems The ethnographic village is still in its initial stage; there is no certain information available about when and how the idea could be developed further. The leader of the Dargaiciai community organization said:
“Dargaiciai wanted to get the status of an urban park, but the border goes through the house and that’s the reason why we needed a detailed plan. We have been working on this plan for 5 years. We already prepared the documentation, but now there is no money for that. Financial question is the main one… A detailed plan has been prepared by private firms and the price is 900 000 or 400 000 litas [approx. 260 820 – 115 920 €]…”.
A segmentation of the social innovation occurred during 2008. The organization of tourism was taken up by a private business, but the celebration of festivals was still kept as a public event and it continued to be organized by the local community. The leader of the Dargaiciai community organization commented:
Tourism is now already a private business, not a community business. We have specific residents – the old-aged, who can do very little for business – just make tea or produce cheese. We have tourism as a form of private business – one person, a resident of Dargaiciai, organizes excursions in the village.
The scheme of the segmentation of the social innovation is evident from figure 20. The blue color indicates activities and actors that are profit-oriented, and the yellow one indicates activities and actors that are involved on a voluntary basis.
159
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Tourists – visiting Apply… Tourism Agencies Dargaiciai village
Apply… Visit Organizes …
Tourists’ visits to A private businessman Dargaiciai village in Dargaiciai
Festivals Organizes … Twice a year: St. George’s Day and Handicraft Day Local community
Organizes … Dargaiciai residents
Figure 20: The scheme of segmentation of social innovation
This segmentation has broken the very core of the social innovation: the idea that village residents could live by employing the uniqueness and oneness of their village. This idea is not valid any more.
One of the possible reasons is the passivity of the local residents. The idea was not supported by all the local residents. The leader of the Community Centre did not live in the Dargaiciai village all the time. She wanted to see the Dargaiciai village as a kind of a living museum. The old wooden architecture and the real rural residents, living their daily life is a composition, which is attractive to tourists, but not attractive to the local residents:
They want to live more comfortably and that’s why they do not want to preserve the old wooden architecture. They are more skeptical than they were a year ago...
Another possible reason is the financial problem. The leader of the Community Centre in Dargaiciai told:
The community has little financing… Global crisis… for example in Siauliai we already feel it. Mainly it is evident in the budget planning of the Municipality. They have a budget deficit and things are supposed to get more complicated next year. We are afraid that financing of community projects will be at a minimal level or projects won’t be financed at all.
160
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The quality of social partnership is low. In the first period the social partnership of the actors was the following:
x The innovator had a major role in the development of the social innovation. x The innovator shared the responsibility and the initiatives for further development of the social innovation were made with the local community. x The local community participated in organizing festivals. x No partnership relation between the local community organization and the local government. x Social partnership with the municipality consisted in information exchange and financial support.
In the second period the social partnership of the actors was not getting more active:
x The innovator had a central role in the development of the social innovation. x The innovator took all responsibility and all initiative of the further development of the social innovation. x The role of the local community is supplementary (participation in organizing festivals twice a year). x No partnership between the local community organization and the local government x Due to the economic crisis, the social partnership with the municipality has changed: based on ongoing informational support, but with no further financial support.
The Dargaiciai ethnographic village as a social innovation
If we understand social innovation as described by Moulaert &. Martinelli &Swyngedouw & González (2005, 1976), we can assume that the idea of Dargaiciai ethnographic village was a social innovation in the first stage of the process because:
x It sought to satisfy the needs of the Dargaiciai village residents for better living: financial profit from tourism, profit for residents from handicrafts, etc. x It fostered the participation of the local residents in public events (e.g. festivals organized by local community itself).
161
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In this context, the strongest point was the newness of idea. The idea was not completely new, because some villages in Lithuania already had a status of an ethnographic village, but in the context of the Siauliai district the idea was quite new, as the community leader said,
“In the Dzukija region there are some similar projects. Here, in north Lithuania, definitely not…”
The project had several original aspects:
x The unique architecture (200 years old buildings that are still used for living) was used to attract tourists; x Tourists were also attracted with the organization of traditional festivals (such as St. George’s day), with old customs and ceremonies and with traditional meals.
Thus the Dargaiciai ethnographic village might be classified as social innovation under the category of new services in rural settlements. However, during the second stage the innovation was segmented when tourism became a private business while the organization of village events and festivals remained a public endeavor. Furthermore, the development of the innovation has remained of the responsibility of the innovator, i.e. there is no partnership in promoting the development of the innovation. The innovation in its present form does not serve the general interest, and it lacks wider public support, as is evidenced by the lack of partnership relations between the local community organization and the local government. In conclusion, then, we could argue that the Dargaiciai ethno-village represents a failed social innovation. It does not fulfill any of the criteria set by Moulaert & al. for social innovation, or it only fulfils some of them in a very limited sense. There are no visible social needs that the innovation would satisfy; it does not provide employment for the villagers, since most of the income generated by tourism ends in private hands. The ethno-village does not empower its residents and it does not provide any means for the changing of social relations.
Balninkai website and computer literacy courses for rural people
The Balninkai Community Centre was established on April 19, 2001. Nineteen villagers from Balninkai, encouraged by the National Centre of the Civic Initiative “Development of Rural Community Organization in Salcininkai and Moletai Counties” decided to establish a community organization. According to the Balninkai community website
162
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
(http://www.netzkraft.net/mitglied.php?teilnehmer=383&lang=englisch) the vision of Balninkai Community Centre is as follows:
Inhabitants of Balninkai are taking the initiative, working hand-in-hand with governmental, private, and faith based organizations, to protect and expand our cultural heritage and community.
The Balninkai Community has a symbol: a wheel, which symbolizes communal ties among all Balninkai inhabitants (see figure 21). Spokes of the wheel represent the institutions of the township, specifically the governmental office, Church, middle school, art gallery, post office, store, and ambulatory office. ”Let us keep the wheel turning”, is a kind of a credo of the Balninkai community.
Only by working together, by being inclusive and open to the voices of everyone, can we create a prosperous Balninkai community, enabling us to lead meaningful lives. Let’s keep the wheel turning.
Figure 21: The symbol of Balninkai community
The Balninkai community has a well-developed community website (see photo 9). This version of the website was created in 2004. The first version of the website was started in 2001-2002; that was a starting point for community development.
163
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 10: Website of the Balninkai community
The scheme of social innovation development is presented in figure 22. In the process of community development several stages could be distinguished (see figure 22):
x Starting position was positive up to 2001. Even if Balninkai is a rather small rural township, it had several active residents who wanted to make a change for the well- being the whole community. Relations among community residents, local government and the church were strong and positive. Local residents had a willingness to participate in the projects and aimed at developing their know-how type of knowledge. x Institutionalization of innovative idea: The establishment of the Balninkai Community Centre took place in 2001. On April 19, 2001 nineteen villagers from Balninkai, encouraged by the National Centre of the Civic Initiative “Development of Rural Community Organization in Salcininkai and Moletai Counties” decided to establish a community organization. x Development of the social innovation. This stage could be divided into 2 periods: the first one was the period of the successful implementation of the first project in 2001 – 2002 and the second period witnessed the birth of lots of projects in 2002 - 2008.
164
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
time Open Society Fund Academicians from Vilnius University
Information about the project “Towards Digital Communities“
INNOVATOR: BIRTH OF THE INNOVATIVE IDEA: Local educated person The development of the website and social profile of Balninkai community Information about the idea INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF 2001 INNOVATIVE IDEA:
Establishment of the Balninkai ADOPTORS:
Balninkai dwellers DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION: 1st stage: successful implementation of the project
Social innovation: development – successfully implemented 2002 Social partnership of actors:
- The innovator has a major role in promotion of the social innovation. The innovator shares the responsibility and the initiative to further the development of the social innovation with the local community. - The local community actively participates in activities
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL INNOVATION:
2nd stage – implementation of other projects
Social innovation: development: different projects
Social partnership of actors:
- The local community actively participates in activities - Social partnership between the local community organization and the local government st - Social partnership with the municipality: information and financial support 1 interview
2009
Figure 22: Community development in Balninkai as a social innovation
165
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Actors behind innovations
First initiatives were related to social environment and computer literacy. The first project in 2001 was called “Addressing the Socio-Demographic Problems of the Balninkai Community”. The opportunity for the project came from outside. Funding came from the Baltic-American Partnership Fund and a person from Vilnius University invited the village to participate in the project. It consisted of a series of seminars which aimed at identifying the social profile of the Balninkai community and at analyzing the socio-demographic problems of the community. The seminars were followed by the conference” Reunion of Balninkai residents and those born in the area”. The leader of the Balninkai community organization at that time was both the local initiator and the project coordinator. This first project was followed by a number of other projects.
As in the previous case, there are different types of actors who shaped the process of the social innovation, and they act on several levels: village, municipal and district level (figure 23). On the village level, the most important actor and the main innovator was the leader of the Balninkai community organization (Balninkǐ bendruomenơs centras). She was a middle- aged woman, who had a higher education diploma and whose work was related to the topic of social innovation. As the leader of Balninkai community organization she organized the promotion of computer literacy courses and introduced these courses to local residents by organizing courses to particular neighbourhoods – e.g. residents of one street.
On the settlement level, the critical factor is the community. The successful implementation of a social innovation is highly dependent on the characteristics of the community itself, e.g. on the different interests and on the competition between small local groups concerning how to develop public space.
Local institutions (church, school, private business) were also important actors in the development of the social innovation culture in Balninkai. Several community projects were developed in cooperation with different local institutions. As the leader of Balninkai community organization told, “We see the role of local institutions as very important in the development of projects. All local institutions need to cooperate in order for us to achieve social well-being for our community.”
166
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
On the settlement level an important actor is the neighbourhood administration. It covers several villages, including Balninkai. Neighbourhood administration gave the opportunity to the project initiators to organize community meetings at the local administration building. On the district level an important actor is the Municipality. The finances of the local (neighbourhood) administration depend on the Municipality.
National level Open Society The Baltic-American foundation Lithuania Partnership Program
University Ministry of Ministry of the Agriculture Interior
District level District authority
Church Rural school Neighbourhood administration Settlement level Local population SME
Public (municipal) sector Public (state) sector
Private sector Local community
Third sector
Figure 23: Central actors of the Balninkai community development
Non-governmental organizations also participated in the development of social innovations, first and foremost the Open Society Foundation Lithuania and the Baltic-American Partnership Program. Balninkai participated in a project “Towards Digital Communities” which was initiated by the Open Society Foundation. This project aimed at showing opportunities of how to use information technologies in communication, and that it is possible to do that in Lithuania. The project was very successful.
167
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Vilnius University has had a major role in the development of the social innovations in this community. As the former leader of the Balninkai Community Centre told:
“The very beginning was when Vilnius University had invited us to participate in the project. That was the first time we heard that rural areas are not necessarily concerned with agriculture. They presented a lot of material and information about Irish communities”.
Another very important group of social actors are governmental institutions, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture and, especially the EU-funded LEADER programme, and the Ministry of the Interior and its project Development of Rural Internet Access Points (RIAP’s). The aim of this project was to establish public internet access points in the rural regions of Lithuania.
Goals of social innovation
The idea of the project was in the beginning to create a community website and to educate rural dwellers about computers and how to use the internet. This was followed by a long list of new projects and establishing a new kind of project culture in the community. As an innovation this activity was directed to give the village residents opportunities to for new skills and knowledge, in order to facilitate the improving of well-being and social inclusion as well as the empowerment of rural residents.
LATENT IDEA LATENT IDEA MANIFESTED IDEA Empowerment of Social inclusion of rural Community website and dwellers rural dwellers courses of computer and internet use
Courses in Development of computer and community internet use social profile and website
.
Figure 24: The idea of social innovation development in Balninkai
168
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Results and problems The main idea of the first project was to empower people to write new projects, to participate in seminars, conferences and also to share their knowledge with other communities. In this context we have to acknowledge that the social innovation was successful.
Since 2001 Balninkai Community Centre has initiated and implemented a lot of projects:
x ‘Addressing the Socio-Demographic Problems of the Balninkai Community’ (2001). Conference–reunion of Balninkai residents and those born in the area. Sponsored by The Baltic-American Partnership Fund. x ’Youth Day in Balninkai’ (2001). Conference-fiesta for teenagers and young adults from Balninkai, Girsteitiskis and Zelva villages. Sponsored by the National Council of Youth Affairs. x ‘Let’s Play Together’ (2001). Project for preschool kids in Balninkai. Sponsor: National Foundation for Educational Change. x ‘Let‘s Work Together’ (2001 – 2002). Development of civic society in Balninkai. Sponsored by The Baltic-American Partnership Fund.
This list was continued with many other projects sponsored by national and/or international funds. The main actors in this process have been the leader of the Community Centre, the members of community organization, several local dwellers, national NGO’s like the Open Society Fund and the Baltic-American Partnership Fund, academic experts. Also different bodies and persons in public administration have assisted in organising projects.
Balninkai community as a social innovation
If we understand social innovation as described by Moulaert et al. (2005, 1976), we can assume that the idea of Balninkai community is a social innovation because:
x It seeks to satisfy the needs of Balninkai residents for new knowledge in order to facilitate employment opportunities. x It fosters the participation of the local residents in community life (e.g. website development, preparation of the social profile of the Balninkai community). x It empowers rural residents.
169
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In 2001 the idea was new. The Open Society Fund had just started the implementation of the project ‘Towards digital communities’ and Balninkai community was among the innovators. In the context of the year 2001, the project had several original aspects:
x Organize courses in computer and internet use for rural residents; x Develop the community’s social profile and website. Social profile is a picture of the community – i.e. who the residents are (age, gender, income, etc.). This research helped the community to identify some of the social problems that existed in the Balninkai community. Therefore the idea to create a community website and to educate the rural dwellers about computer and the use of internet could be classified as social innovation in the category of new education courses for rural people.
Photo 11: View from Balninkai (Photo Inna Kopoteva 2009)
170
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Summary of the Lithuanian case study
Dargaiciai ethnographic village Balninkai
Bottom-up / The township had several active residents that wanted to change top-down The very beginning of the idea something for the well-being of the about ethnographic village came entire community. The first initiatives into being when the Director of were related to social environment Community Centre bought a and computer literacy. homestead in Dargaiciai village. The first project “Addressing Socio- This initiative was encouraged by Demographic Problems of the the Department of Culture in the Balninkai Community” (2001) was Siauliai district municipality, as financed by the Baltic-American they provided information about Partnership Fund. An expert from archives. Vilnius University acted as a mediator between the funder and the village.
Local social There was a need for the project. Local residents needed to develop needs Rural dwellers wanted to improve their know-how about computers and their well-being with income the use of internet. from tourism and cultural activities.
Local social Activating people to work together Social innovation is still in its impact in projects, and also to start new initial phase; no certainty when projects as well as to share their and how the idea will be knowledge with other communities. developed further, if ever. Therefore empowerment effects.
Local The old wooden architecture and Community has a building for the Resources real people, living their daily life Community Centre and for the in an old rural village computers.
External The Baltic-American Partnership resources No success in getting them. Fund, the Open Society Foundation and LEADER program, among others
Empowerment Increasing trust during collaboration in community and in Not achieved so far. contact with external actors has empowerment effects.
171
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Partnership Implemented projects were based on The innovator shares the idea (actors from occasional partnership relations. Well and the implementation of the different working partnership between innovation with the local sectors) neighbourhood administration and the community. No working community and well working ‘weak partnership between the local ties’ to the external organisations, e.g. community organization and the the funding NGOs and Vilnius local government. University.
Social The project fosters participation of The project tries to involve inclusion the local residents in community life community members to and social inclusion by educational participate more actively in efforts and by facilitating the access community life, with less success. to internet.
Diffusion of Single projects developed a culture of innovation project activities in the community. No implementation, therefore no Computer literacy courses were part diffusion. of a diffusion process of computer based activities in Lithuanian rural communities.
172
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
6. Revisiting social innovations and social partnerships – the focus group studies Miira Niska, Inna Kopoteva, Alexander Shkerin, Egle Butkeviciene
Introduction Altogether four focus groups were conducted in each country: the first group consisted of members of local administration and rural development organisations, the second group consisted of local entrepreneurs and farmers, and the third group consisted of local inhabitants. The last group was the mixed-group, which consisted of representatives from the previous three groups and some new participants.
Table 9. Amount of focus groups’ participants
Finland Russia Lithuania
FG 1: members of local administration and rural development 4 6 3 organisations
FG 2: local entrepreneurs and farmers 5 4 3
FG 3: local inhabitants 3 5 9
FG 4: mixed-group 5 8 6
At the beginning of each session coffee/tee was served and participants had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with some information on the research project (e.g. photos and brochures). The sessions started with introductions. Moderator introduced herself, the second moderator, the research and the aim of the discussion, and the participants introduced themselves to each other. After the introductions the questions/stimuli were presented to the participants. The duration of each focus group session was approximately 2 hours.
Finnish focus group study
Execution of Finnish focus group study The focus group participants were recruited to the sessions in April 2009 via telephone, letter or/and e-mail. Six to seven persons were recruited in each session and groups were gathered
173
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
to include both men and women. Finally each group consisted of 3–5 persons. The first three focus group sessions were conducted at the premises of a local school in May 2009. General information on the participants is gathered in table 10. The entrepreneurs in the second session represented several lines of business: e.g. tourism, bio-energy and wholesale trade.
Table 10. Participants of focus groups in Ristiina 1–3
Group 1 Person A Female Representative of local administration
Person B Male Representative of local administration
Person C Female Representative of local council
Person D Male Representative of rural development organisation
Group 2 Person E Male Local entrepreneur
Person F Male Local entrepreneur
Person G Female Local entrepreneur
Person H Male Local entrepreneur
Person I Female Local entrepreneur
Group 3 Person J Female Local inhabitant
Person K Male Local inhabitant
Person L Male Local inhabitant
The fourth focus group session was conducted at a local café in July 2009. General information on the participants is gathered in table 11. The mixed-group then consisted of representatives from the previous three groups and two new participants: a representative of recreational residents and a local inhabitant who did not participate in the third focus group session. Unfortunately a representative of local entrepreneurs had to cancel his participation at the last moment, and so the group of entrepreneurs was not represented at the mixed-group.
Table 11. Participants of focus group 4
Group 4 Person A Female Representative of local administration
Person C Female Representative of local council
174
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Person K Male Local inhabitant
Person M Female Local inhabitant
Person N Male Representative of recreational residents
The focus groups discussions were transcribed and the data consisted of approximately 130 pages of text.
Focus group sessions 1–3
Problems of Ristiina The first question presented to the participants focused on the problems Ristiina faces. Various problems were identified in the group discussions. The weak financial situation of the municipality was identified as a problem in all three groups. According to the participants, the financial situation poses a threat for municipality’s ability to provide services for the inhabitants.
Small population was identified as a problem in the group of administration and development organisations, and in the group of local entrepreneurs. Although the group of administration and development organisations highlighted that depopulation is not as big of a problem in Ristiina as it is in other parts of South Savo, decreasing and ageing population was anyhow identified as a problem. According to the group of administration and development organisations, small population is a problem, because it means fewer services and thus fewer jobs, and less labour force. The group of entrepreneurs also identified small population as a problem but they considered small population as a problem from a slightly different perspective. According to the entrepreneurs, small population means small clientele, which makes it difficult to do business in Ristiina:
G2H: I might add to that … absence of demand is of course a problem. During the summer time there is more clientele, but these seasonal variations are a problem for an entrepreneur who needs to run business 12 months a year.
Lack of entrepreneurs and enterprises was discussed in the group of local entrepreneurs and the group of local inhabitants. The two groups, however, framed the problem in different ways. According to local entrepreneurs, Ristiina needs a diverse source of livelihood. The
175
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
entrepreneurs were worried that Ristiina depends too much on plywood industry and UPM Pellos plywood factory. Although plywood industry was evaluated as important, entrepreneurs were worried that at present possible descents in the industry have too much of an impact on Ristiina. The group of administration and development organisations also discussed the dependence on the employment of UPM Pellos factory, but they did not name dependence as a problem. The group of local inhabitants, on the other hand, considered what the lack of enterprises means for inhabitants in their everyday life. According to the inhabitants, lack of enterprises, such as groceries, is a serious problem for local people:
G3L: It is crucial that a village has a grocery. Not everyone has a car, and so the elderly and the families have to buy food from the centre village or from the city, Mikkeli.
The group of entrepreneurs and the group of local people discussed the problem with infrastructure in Ristiina. According to the local entrepreneurs, the roads have fallen into disrepair and road improvement is needed. Weak broadband channel was also identified as a problem that handicaps local entrepreneurs’ business. Local inhabitants on the other hand identified the lack of a meeting place as a problem.
Finally, lack of courage and innovativeness, and passivity of the local inhabitants were identified as problems in the group of administration and development organisations, and in the group of local entrepreneurs. The group of administration and development organisations worried that Ristiina does not benefit from LEADER as much as it could because the villages in Ristiina lack active individuals who could and would apply for LEADER projects. The group of entrepreneurs, on the other hand, discussed the need to have special know-how that could be sold outside the region:
G2I: Somehow the lack of innovative thinking and development of special know- how. Those bring the euros into the province. Regarding the development of our area, it would be really important to engender services and know-how that we could sell outside the region.
The problems of Ristiina discussed in the three focus group sessions can be condensed into six key problems that are presented in table 12.
176
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 12: Key problems of Ristiina x Weak financial situation of the municipality and municipality’s inability to provide public services x Small (also decreasing and ageing) population x Lack of entrepreneurs and enterprises x Dependence on the employment of UPM Pellos plywood factory x Weak infrastructure x Lack of courage and innovativeness, and passivity of local people
One key problem, the financial situation of the municipality, was recognized and named in all three groups. Most key problems were recognized and named in two out of three groups. Representatives of administration and development organisations, and entrepreneurs agreed that Ristiina’s small population and the lack of courage and innovativeness of the local people are problems. Entrepreneurs and local inhabitants on the other hand agreed that the lack of entrepreneurs and enterprises was a problem. Entrepreneurs, in addition, named dependence on the employment of UPM Pellos plywood factory and weak infrastructure as problems.
Ways to solve the problems of Ristiina Problem: Lack of public services
Several possible ways to solve the identified problems were presented in the focus group discussions. Securing of basic public services was discussed in the group of local administration and rural development organisations. The participants argued that besides public sector, private and third sector could and should also participate in service production. One of the participants for example pondered the role village associations and local inhabitants could play in the service production:
G1D: I was wondering; village associations might know people willing to work as part-time home aids in villages. They would be closer to those who need help.
In the discussion of local administration and rural development organizations, all sectors – public, private and third – were presented as being responsible for the basic services, and
177
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
cooperation between the sectors was presented as one possible solution to the problem of service production.
Problem: Small population
The group of local administration and rural development organisations argued that due to small and decreasing population there is a need to attract new inhabitants. According to the participants, services and jobs are needed but the group especially highlighted the role of effective plot trade. There was, however, a disagreement over who should be responsible for the effectiveness of the plot trade. Some merely stated that municipality needs to do effective plot policy, whereas others stated that municipality cannot alone control plot trade; plots are private properties and plot trade depends on the willingness of the local people to sell. The group of local administration and rural development organisations viewed local people somewhat unwilling to sell the potential plots and argued that some persuasion might be needed. Village associations were mentioned as one possible actor who could encourage people into plot trade.
Not all participants in the group of local administration and rural development organisations, however, considered effective plot trade as a sufficient way to attract new inhabitants. One of the participants highlighted the importance of positive image that local inhabitants can create:
G1C: - It depends on the village and village community, the inhabitants, what kind of a spirit they create and what kind of an image they give. If there are plots, are the people attempted to move there or aren’t they.
The group of entrepreneurs, on the other hand, argued that Ristiina needs to draw more visitors and tourists. In order to do this Ristiina should be marketed better and there should be more (tourist) information available about Ristiina. According to the entrepreneurs, active participation in tourism exhibitions is needed and Ristiina should also have its own tourist information.
Problem: Dependence on the employment of UPM and poor livelihood development
The group of entrepreneurs – who named dependence on the employment of UPM Pellos plywood factory a problem – argued that Ristiina needs livelihood development and new lines of business. The present development of Ristiina’s livelihood was called into question
178
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
especially in the group of entrepreneurs but also in the group of local inhabitants. The participants argued that Ristiina lacks enthusiastic and competent livelihood developers:
G2I: I wish there was someone with passion because that is usually contagious, some active organization or actor. If there are enthusiastic and passionate people it normally draws others to join in. We have this phlegmatic state here, whether it is about development of tourism or marketing, or advancing and improving anything.
The municipality of Ristiina is a part-owner of a livelihood company Miset Oy together with seven other municipalities in Mikkeli region. Miset was strongly criticised by entrepreneurs and local inhabitants. Both groups presented Miset as unapproachable and contemptuous. According to a local inhabitant:
G3K: Miset is completely outside Ristiina, they don’t know anything about Ristiina in Mikkeli. - - Once municipality gives an assignment to Miset, how will Miset deal with it? They don’t know anyone or anything. - - Miset should ask the locals how things are but they don’t knuckle under, it is amazing how the ones from bigger places think they know more than the ones from small places.
Both local inhabitants and entrepreneurs stated that Ristiina needs an active and competent livelihood developer. Both the inhabitants and entrepreneurs aimed this wish at the municipality. However, the entrepreneurs also named themselves as potential actors of the livelihood development:
G2E: I wish we had a competent person who would take care of the livelihood, an active person. If we want to achieve something bigger the municipality needs to take an active role. And of course small-scale entrepreneurship, we can and should all be active.
Problem: Lack of entrepreneurs and enterprises
The problem of depending too much on the employment of UPM Pellos plywood factory was connected with the problem of having few entrepreneurs and enterprises. Lack of entrepreneurs and private services was widely discussed in the group of local entrepreneurs. According to the entrepreneurs, there were two main reasons for the lack of entrepreneurs:
179
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the local inhabitants lack the courage and the municipality does not encourage them. On one hand entrepreneurs recognized that there is a need for innovative and courageous individuals:
G2E: We need these Gyro Gearlooses30, who have the courage to present their views of the development of a product.
On the other hand, some of the entrepreneurs thought that the lack of enterprises partly stems from the fact that the municipality of Ristiina does not encourage people to entrepreneurship, and even makes entrepreneurship in Ristiina difficult:
G2F: Well, the municipality is not very supportive in Ristiina, I’m afraid the municipality does not support people to start their own business. There is no-one who would encourage people. Here they rather say, hey let’s go to Mikkeli or Mäntyharju.
G2G: The municipality has not helped our enterprise; on the contrary, it has basically stabbed us in the back.
Not everyone, however, agreed that there is something especially wrong with the way the municipality of Ristiina operates. One of the entrepreneurs defended municipality, but at the same time declared that he himself does not need municipality’s support:
G2H: I would not accuse the municipality of Ristiina; I mean all the municipalities in Finland are the same. The municipality has not stabbed me and I don’t need the municipality.
The group of local administration and rural development organisations addressed the problem of few entrepreneurs and enterprises from a different perspective. Every single inhabitant was presented as being responsible for the consumer demand, which was presented as a key factor in entrepreneurship promotion. For this reason local inhabitants should favour local services and products:
G1A: Well we have a grocery shop here but if we think of a clothes shop or something, it is due to our own doings. Whether it is stupidity or what, we like to
30 Gyro Gearloose is a fictional character created by the Walt Disney Company. The character is a famous inventor. 180
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
spend our Saturday afternoons at Graani31 or somewhere else. It is our own consumer demand that either maintains or extinguishes the services.
The possible ways to solve the problems of Ristiina can be condensed into eight proposed settlements. The proposed settlements are presented in table 13.
Table 13: Possible ways to solve problems of Ristiina x Private and third sectors’ participation in service production x Effective plot trade x Positive image creation x Marketing and information for tourists (tourism exhibitions and establishment of a tourist information) x New, active and competent livelihood developer (detachment from Miset Oy) x Encouragement for local people to become entrepreneurs x Favouritism for local services and products
Besides discussing what should be done in order to solve the problems of Ristiina, the participants also discussed who they think is responsible for solving the problems, or who should and could solve the problems. Only few actors were named in the discussions: the participants targeted their expectations on the municipality of Ristiina, local inhabitants, local entrepreneurs and village associations. These four actors were named as the potential doers of all the proposed settlements. The municipality of Ristiina was expected to do effective plot trade, provide a new livelihood developer for Ristiina and encourage local inhabitants to entrepreneurship. Local entrepreneurs were expected to participate in service production in tandem with public and third sector and take part in the livelihood development. In addition tourism entrepreneurs were expected to take part in marketing the area for tourists. Local inhabitants were expected to become more entrepreneurial, be willing to sell plots, favour local products and services and engender positive image of the area. Finally, village associations were expected to participate in service production in tandem with public and private sector and promote plot trade.
31 Graani is a shopping centre in the city of Mikkeli. 181
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Actions already executed in Ristiina
Several actions have already been executed in Ristiina in order to solve the problems the area is facing. Firstly, all three groups discussed Miset’s role in the development of Ristiina. The groups of administration and development organisations, and entrepreneurs discussed municipality’s entry into Miset Oy, and both groups presented the entry as a failure. Representatives of the administration stated they had high hopes for Miset – hopes Miset has not been able to fulfill:
G1A: Was it 2006 when the livelihood company of Mikkeli region was established? At the time Ristiina wanted to be a part of it, and we thought it will be God’s gift for Ristiina. That soon we will have enterprises here and there, and we can pick and choose. But I have to say, this regional thing has not fed us well.
Also local entrepreneurs expressed disappointment with Miset. When asked, what has been done in order to reduce the problems of Ristiina, a local entrepreneur made a sarcastic comment:
G2H: And one thing of course that has been done, the municipality has made a deal with Miset. At least a contract has been made.
[Several people laughing]
G2I: The deal tastes like paper
G2H: Yeah, and we are paying for it!
A representative of local inhabitants, however, noted that although Miset has not lived up to expectations, it has nevertheless offered some benefits:
G3J: Well Miset has offered some advantages, but in our view it is not exactly what we were hoping for.
G3K: They lack information in Miset
G3J: We have received some trade promoter’s services and so on.
182
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Both the group of local administration and rural development organisations, and the group of entrepreneurs highlighted the fact that the municipality has organised a committee for recreational residents. A representative of local administration described:
G1A: Well, the municipality is active, I think, and sets an example to others. For example this committee for summer residents, and the active villagers and the municipality, we are on friendly terms and get things done.
The group of local administration and rural development organisations pointed out that development projects have been successfully executed in villages, and plot trade has been successfully done in order to reduce the problems of decreasing population. A representative of local administration stated:
G1A: The development of the municipality is tied to plot purchase and land use. Last year we did well with the plot trade; we have enough land to cover plot supply for several years.
The group of entrepreneurs highlighted the attempts to network local entrepreneurs. According to the entrepreneurs, there have been attempts to network the tourism entrepreneurs of the area. The municipality has also organized meetings for local entrepreneurs. As one entrepreneur stated:
G2F: The municipality has organized these breakfast meetings for entrepreneurs, which apparently we did not previously have.
However, there was a difference of opinion over why the breakfast meetings lack participants. One entrepreneur accused entrepreneurs for not showing up:
G2E: As far as I know, the municipal manager is willing to discuss with entrepreneurs. But well, these entrepreneurs … it’s always the wrong time or the wrong day for a meeting.
Another entrepreneur, however, stated that some entrepreneurs are never invited to these meetings. The reason is that the invitations are sent to members of Ristiina’s local association of the Federation of Finnish Enterprises, whereas some entrepreneurs are members of Mikkeli’s local association of Federation of Finnish Enterprises.
183
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The group of administration and development organisations discussed the Rock Art Centre project (see chapter 5) as an attempt to network local entrepreneurs. Productization of rock art was discussed in all three focus groups. Ristiina is famous for the ancient rock paintings of Astuvansalmi, and some successful and some not so successful productizations of these paintings have been made. The attempt to establish a Rock Art Centre had not yet taken place when the research was made in 2009 but rock art has inspired music and theatre performances and rock art seminars. The Rock Art Centre project was evaluated positively, especially in the group of administration and development organisations:
G1C: We have had this Rock Art Centre project that has been executed with Ruralia Institute and we have had some excellent cooperation.
The participants named six attempts that have been made in Ristiina in order to reduce the problems Ristiina faces. The mentioned actions are presented in table 14.
Table 14. Actions already executed in Ristiina. x Entry into Miset Oy x Establishment of the committee for recreational residents x Villages’ development projects x Effective plot trade x Attempts to network local entrepreneurs x Productization of rock art
While discussing what actions have been realized in order to solve the problems of Ristiina, the participants also discussed the actors responsible for these actions. Besides the four central actors – the municipality, local entrepreneurs and inhabitants, and the village associations – some other actors were also mentioned. Firstly the role of Miset and the regional council was discussed and the participants expressed discontent with both actors. The regional council was evaluated negatively because they had refused to finance the Rock Art Centre project. Secondly, the role of the Local Action Group Veej’jakaja, Ruralia Institute of the University of Helsinki and the Finnish Association of Rock Art was discussed. The participants evaluated these actors favourably and they were considered important in the development projects and producitization of rock art.
184
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
An ideal Ristiina Finally, the participants were asked to describe what an ideal Ristiina (or an ideal village in Ristiina) would be like. The group of local administration and rural development organisations and the group of entrepreneurs both emphasised population growth. Besides the old inhabitants, an ideal Ristiina would also have new inhabitants and recreational residents. The group of entrepreneurs emphasised that in an ideal village the summer residents have become second home owners who come to Ristiina around the year – not just during summer.
Another important feature of an ideal Ristiina for both local administration and development organisations and entrepreneurs is good service supply. The entrepreneurs, however, also emphasised that in an ideal Ristiina both the municipality and the local inhabitants favour local services and products. One participant emphasised that the municipality should utilize local bio-energy for heating. Another participant emphasised the role of local inhabitants:
G2F: That local inhabitants would use local products and services whenever they can. I think it servers our common interests to use the services and that way activate Ristiina and villages.
The group of entrepreneurs also named functional cooperation between local entrepreneurs and good infrastructure as features of an ideal Ristiina. The group of local administration and development organisations emphasised that an ideal Ristiina would have jobs and would utilize yet untapped natural resources for business. Finally, both the group of local administration and the group of local inhabitants emphasised the importance of meeting places and communality.
G3J: Small distance everywhere and we have this own community there. Every child knows each other and then we also look after our neighbours.
Focus group session 4
Comments on the problems of Ristiina At the beginning of the fourth focus group session a list of key problems, named in the first three sessions, was presented to the participants (see table 12). The participants of the fourth session agreed that the financial situation of the municipality is a problem that also affects the municipality’s ability to provide public services. The problem with infrastructure was also
185
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
recognized. Several problems mentioned on the list were, however, questioned. Firstly, the participants stated that the population in Ristiina is not really decreasing:
G4N: Population of Ristiina is not really decreasing. The population is ageing though.
G4K: I agree; compared with other municipalities in South Savo the population of Ristiina has not decreased. It used to be about 6 000 and now it is approximately 5 000.
Secondly, concerning the weak infrastructure, lack of meeting places was called into question:
G4C: Lack of meeting places, I don’t know what this means - - I think there is only one place in Ristiina where this is the case and it is the Hangastenmaa area32.
Thirdly, lack of enterprises and entrepreneurs was called into question:
G4K: Lack of entrepreneurship. I don’t know, is this really a problem? We have all kinds of entrepreneurs here and... People are active and entrepreneurial whenever they have a chance.
One of the participants argued that it is not really the lack of enterprises, but the lack of expansionary enterprises that is the problem. Two other participants argued that the lack of entrepreneurs is not really a problem, since the municipality has strategically decided to be a municipality for residence. Although entrepreneurship was presented as important, participants emphasized that the municipality has decided to concentrate on the acquisition of new inhabitants. Passivity of the local inhabitants was not discussed at this point.
Can the problems be solved at local level?
After commenting on the list of problems, the participants were asked to name the problems that could be solved at local level. At first the participants stated that all problems can be solved at local level:
32 Hangastenmaa is a village in Ristiina 186
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Moderator: What do you think, which of these problems could be solved at a local level?
G4N: All of them
G4A: Yes, all of them
However later in the discussion this opinion was overruled. Firstly, the weak financial situation of the municipality was presented as a problem that cannot be solved at local level:
G4N: It is difficult to change the financial situation, because the parliament enacts obligations that need to be taken care of, one way or another. You can’t help it.
Secondly, it was argued that the lack of expansionary enterprises is a problem that cannot be solved at local level:
G4N: We have small enterprises here. Supposedly, after they have enough work for themselves they don’t want to go further. They won’t hire more staff. There is a threshold - -
G4K: Yeah, so it is. That is the idea. And that cannot be solved at local level.
G4N: No.
G4K: That is a matter of national policy.
Thirdly, the participants argued concerning the weak infrastructure that roads are the responsibility of the Finnish Road Administration and can thus not be solved at local level:
Second moderator: Isn’t it easy to solve the infrastructure problem, just put the money onto the table and put guys to work?
G4N: This is connected with the problem number one [refers to the list of problems; number one is weak financial situation of the municipality]
G4A: No, this has nothing to do with that! This problem with roads is a problem of the Finnish Road Administration and how they handle the problem and how important they consider the problem to be.
187
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
However, the participants named several actions that could reduce the problems of Ristiina and could be executed at local level. One participant argued that in order to attract visitors and tourists Ristiina needs a crowd-puller, a festival or some other tourist attraction. Art Centre Salmela in Mäntyharju33 was often used as a successful example. New inhabitants on other hand could be drawn to Ristiina with municipality’s effective plot policy. As in the previous focus group sessions, the municipality’s responsibility in plot policy was again called into question. A representative of local administration stated that plot trade is not in the hands of the municipality, but in the hands of local people:
G4A: Of course we can all be active, but at the end of the day, well, plots are private properties and people have the right to decide how they take it.
According to the participants, cooperation between different sectors could possibly be a solution to the problem with public services. The participants, however, also recognized the problems and emphasised that cooperation in the service production is not a trouble-free issue. On one hand, participants were concerned about the quality of the services produced by the private or third sector. On the other hand, a representative of the local administration was concerned about the functionality of the cooperation in service production:
G4A: It is true that the municipality needs partners more and more. But the partners need to be aware of the norms and regulations, like the rights and obligations … The municipality needs long-term partners, and if we start to run down some of the municipality’s operations and resort to outsourcing services, from the third sector or so, well that needs to be resistant. We need trust to pull it off.
In the first three focus group sessions, the lack of enterprises was also discussed from the viewpoint of available information on the local products and services. Therefore the fourth group was asked to comment on an idea of informing both inhabitants and summer residents of the local services and products with a brochure. Discussion quickly turned into a discussion about the payer of the brochure:
33 Mäntyharju is a municipality in South Savo 188
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
G4C: I don’t know whether we should consider. Of course we have this Summer Ristiinalainen34, once every summer every household gets it, we could gather the information there.
G4A: Yes, but I have suggested that the local association of Federation of Finnish Enterprises or the Lions club could do the brochure every year and make business with the incomes from the advertisements. In Mäntyharju for example the Lions club does it, but here the municipality needs to do everything, and this is so, I can see the first dot on the list [the weak financial situation of the municipality]
Finally, a representative of the local administration argued that the local inhabitants could make a difference with their own behaviour. Firstly, local inhabitants should favour local products and services. Secondly, they should take some responsibility over the image creation and marketing of Ristiina:
G4A: The attractiveness of the municipality that is the image that we create. If the inhabitants can’t be content with Ristiina and market our excellence, well not many from Lohja or Asikkala35 can come and say, oh, you have so … Marketing of the municipality stems from us all.
Relevant actors in Ristiina’s development At the end of the fourth focus group session the participants were asked to name all actors who might be relevant in terms of Ristiina’s development. The participants were also asked to comment on the actors and evaluate their cooperation with other actors. The actors mentioned in the session were:
x Local actors: o The municipality of Ristiina o Local entrepreneurs o Local inhabitants o The local association of Federation of Finnish Enterprises o Village committees and associations o Summer residents and summer residents’ committee
34 Ristiinalainen is a local paper 35 Lohja is a city and Asikkala is a municipality. Both are located in Southern Finland. 189
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
o Ristiinalainen (newspaper) o Associations and clubs o The parish x Sub-regional and regional actors: o Miset Oy o Länsi-Savo (paper) o Mikkeli o Veej’jakaja LAG o Mikkeli University Consortium o Regional Council o T&E Centre x National level actors: o The Parliament o Tax Administration o Environmental Administration o Road Administration
According to the participants, cooperation between some of the actors is very fruitful. The parish of Ristiina was evaluated as a good partner in cooperation. Firstly, cooperation between the municipality and Ristiina’s parish was praised and secondly cooperation between Ristiina’s parish and local associations and clubs was evaluated as functional:
G4K: The parish does excellent and punctual cooperation, the parish has more resources than several others. It is an important partner for clubs and things work out better with the parish than with the municipality, for example.
Cooperation between the village committees, Veej’jakaja LAG and municipality was considered important in order to enable the development project work. However, the participants thought that the cooperation is not functioning equally well with all village committees.
A representative of the local administration argued that the cooperation between the municipality and the local entrepreneurs is perhaps not as functional as it could be. According to her, the municipality has tried to contact the entrepreneurs by organizing regular meetings
190
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
(also discussed in previous focus group sessions), but for some reason there are only a few entrepreneurs who are willing to participate:
G4A: the municipality has tried to organize meetings with the entrepreneurs. Certain people come, and they are the ones already active. But the municipality has organized meetings in the morning, in the afternoon, during the day, on weekends, on weekdays, and the majority won’t come. Why that is, I don’t know.
When participants were asked to name the actors who should participate more in development of the area, only two actors were named: the local entrepreneurs and the local papers. A local inhabitant thought that the local entrepreneurs might show more potential, and that the potential could be realized if the entrepreneurs networked more:
G4M: I don’t know what the situation really is, but it seems like there is a lot more potential in the local entrepreneurs. The cooperation between them is not optimal - - I’m sure there could be more possibilities if we could get them to cooperate more.
On the other hand, the participants agreed that the local papers should recognize their role as opinion leaders and try to create a positive image for the area:
G4C: From the media I would say the Länsi-Savo newspaper - - The flood of information is not always good for our image. I think there is room for improvement.
G4A: Yes, yes, yes. And exactly, you would imagine that one of the main tasks of Länsi-Savo is to create positivity and highlight positive things in our region. Often I feel like it is writing only about negative things …
Social partnerships and development of Ristiina
Mustakangas et al. (2003, 69) note that in Finland the municipalities offer a natural point of reference for the study of partnerships. Based on the focus group discussions the final part of this sub-chapter deals with the following questions: are there social partnerships in Ristiina; do they have an effect on the development of Ristiina; and, lastly, are there obstacles for partnership formation.
Social partnership often takes form through development projects (Mustakangas et al. 2003, 11-12). In Ristiina, a partnership that aims at the establishment of a Rock Art Centre has been
191
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
formed. In focus group sessions, several actors pointed out that Ristiina needs tourists and that there is a need for a tourist attraction. According to the focus group discussions, the municipality of Ristiina, Ruralia Institute and the Finnish Association of Rock Art share a goal of establishing the centre and seem eager to work together. The main problem, however, is that – at least in 2009 – the key actors did not have resources to establish the centre on their own and the partnership lacked outside financiers (see also chapter 5).
In Finland, partnerships have become well-known especially through Local Action Groups, which distribute funding for rural development projects. Veej’jakaja ry36 operates in Ristiina area, and there seems to be a fairly functioning partnership between the LAG, the municipality of Ristiina and some villages and village committees. Several development projects in Ristiina have been financed through Veej’jakaja37. From the municipality’s point of view, however, the problem is that some villages are passive and the villagers are reluctant to apply for rural development projects. Mustakangas et al. (2003, 70) note that the role of local administration is transforming; the local administration more often thinks that its role is to enable action, not to participate in it. A representative of Ristiina’s local administration referred to this enabling role while commenting on cooperation between the municipality, village associations and the local people:
G1A: But shouldn’t the action stem from the local actors? I mean we have had some problems with our eleven village committees. They wait for the municipality to give them something ready, but the municipality rather helps them when they have a project proposal to make. Well we can’t really give much money since the resources are diminished, but we can for example help with the project.
In the mixed group discussion, the same participant stated:
G4A: I think municipality’s duty is to create an operational environment and create opportunities. Today the financial situation restricts the ways the municipality is able to participate.
36 Veej’jakaja LAG itself is of course an embodiment of the partnership idea. The board includes representatives of the area’s municipalities, associations, entrepreneurs and inhabitants. 37 Veej’jakaja LAG has for example financed projects with a view to exploit Astuvansalmi rock art, extend a local hunting lodge, and diversify services of Ristiina’s harbor area (see Vee’jakaja 2009). 192
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Although the representatives of local administration presented Veej’jakaja as a good recipient for funding for rural development work, they were also worried that the passivity of the inhabitants creates a situation made negative by Ristiina’s resources benefit other municipalities:
G1A: Two weeks ago, or was it last week [G1C: Last week] there was a meeting with village committees where the project funding that the villages had received was viewed. The funding is small but anyway important for villages. And well, the thing is, the municipality gives more than ten thousand Euros a year to Veej’jakaja. And it is good because through Vee’jakaja even big projects can be financed. But then if the people in Ristiina will not apply for projects, well then the money goes somewhere else.
Municipalities’ concern over the consumption of LAG money and over the fact that the money might actually result in benefiting the neighbouring municipalities is noted in previous research (see e.g. Karhio 2000, 99; Mustakangas et al. 2003, 106-107).
The municipality of Ristiina is a part-owner of the regional livelihood development company Miset Oy and there could be a livelihood development centred partnership between the municipality, Miset Oy and local entrepreneurs. However, the cooperation seems problematic, since the local administration, the local entrepreneurs and the local inhabitants all expressed distrust of Miset. Both the local inhabitants and the entrepreneurs stated that Miset is an elusive actor. According to one entrepreneur:
G2I: Miset is a good example; when the services are far from the users, the relationship becomes impersonal and unapproachable.
All groups seemed to agree that Miset is not aware of Ristiina’s needs and thus does not share Ristiina’s goals in livelihood development. In the local inhabitants’ group, the situation was attributed to the contemptuous attitude of the actor (see G3K’s comment on page 179). In the mixed group, however, a representative of the local administration recognized that perhaps Ristiina has failed to express its needs to Miset:
G4A: Yes, we have had high expectations of Miset, and perhaps we have not been able to express clearly what it is that we want and what the entrepreneurs in Ristiina want and what we expect from the company. 193
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Local entrepreneurs and the inhabitants who participated in focus group sessions did not express a desire to improve Miset’s knowledge, but quite clearly expressed a wish that the municipality would stop striving for the partnership and pick up the baton of Ristiina’s livelihood development itself. It should, however, be noted that based on focus group discussions, the livelihood development partnership between the municipality and the local entrepreneurs is not trouble free. Firstly, it is by no means evident that the municipality and the entrepreneurs share the exact same goal. The representatives of the local administration pointed out that the municipality has strategically decided to concentrate on drawing new inhabitants to Ristiina, not on promoting entrepreneurship:
G4A: I think we need to keep in mind that we have a strategy in this municipality and the strategy is that Ristiina is a municipality for good living. And we have decided that strategy and perhaps we are not thinking about other things, such as the diversification or the promotion of entrepreneurship.
On the other hand, the local administration and the entrepreneurs both presented each other as being, at least partly, responsible for problems in Ristiina’s livelihood development. The entrepreneurs sustained that the municipality is passive in livelihood development; whereas the local administration suggested that the municipality is active, for example in trying to network the entrepreneurs, but that it is the entrepreneurs who are passive and unwilling to participate.
In some cases the need to establish a functional partnership was announced. The need to establish a partnership to promote plot trade was discussed in the group of local administration and in the mixed group. The participants stated that effective plot trade is a necessity for Ristiina’s development and should be done in cooperation between the municipality, the village associations and the local people. On the other hand, the group consisting of local administration and the development organizations discussed the need to establish partnership relations between the municipality, the entrepreneurs, village associations and the local people to secure basic services in Ristiina. Evidently neither of these notional partnerships is yet established in Ristiina.
194
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Russian focus group study
Execution of Russian focus group study
During the preparation stage the list of possible participants was made on the basis of the previous research. This list was sent to the Rural Advisory Centre in Semenov, where it was updated according to the current situation38. Representatives of Rural Advisory Centre invited participants mainly by phone or during personal meetings. Up to ten people were listed for each session. In the end each group consisted of 4–6 people; and the groups included both men and women.
The first three focus group sessions were conducted on the premises of the Rural Advisory Centre in May-June 2009. General information on the participants is gathered in table 15.
Table 15: Participants of focus groups 1-3 in Semenov Group 1 Person A Male Employment agency (representative of state authority in the district) Person B Female Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment (representative of state authority in the district) Person C Female Rural advisory centre Person D Female Rural advisory centre Person E Male Local government , municipal district level Person F Male Local government , municipal district level
Group 2 Person G Male Local entrepreneur Person H Male Head of the credit cooperative Person I Female Local entrepreneur Person J Male Farmer
Group 3 Person K Female Local inhabitant Person L Female Local inhabitant Person M Male Local inhabitant Person N Female Local inhabitant Person O Female Local inhabitant
The fourth focus group session was conducted at the same place – on the premises of Rural Advisory Centre in Semenov. General information on the participants is gathered in table 16.
38 For example, one family stopped raising Romanov sheep and did not participate in the project anymore. 195
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The mixed-group then consisted of representatives from the previous three groups and four new participants.
Table 16: Participants of focus group 4 in Semenov Group 4 Person C Female Rural advisory centre Person H Male Head of credit cooperative Person K Female Local inhabitant Person L Male Local inhabitant Person P Male Department of agriculture Person R Male Head of a rural municipality Person S Male Local government , municipal district level Person T Female Head of a rural municipality Participants who took part in the FG 1–3 in bold
Focus groups 1-3
Problems of Semenov
The major problems of rural territories of the Nizhniy Novgorod region can be divided into eight blocks. These are political, financial, industrial, infrastructural, social-demographic, social-psychological, personnel and organizational problems (see appendix). Groups of authority (FG1), business (FG2), and local population (FG3) have noted similar problems; however, they did not agree on the importance of these problems. Groups of authority and business agreed that the major problem that rose in the early 1990s and which still exists is the disparity of prices.
The main problem is the disparity of prices, and this has resulted in the low profitability of agricultural production, in low salaries and in unemployment (FG1).
In these conditions the agricultural producers often work without profit. The problem of the price disparity sharply impedes the development of agriculture and then becomes itself the cause of a chain of financial (absence of investments into rural areas and agriculture, low salaries for the villagers), infrastructural (bad roads, bad water drains, difficulties with the financing of the social sphere), social-demographic (outflow of youth from the villages, the ageing of the population and the extinction of villages), and social-psychological (misuse of alcohol, social dependence) problems. Participants pointed out the interrelatedness of the problems and the difficulties to define the key problems. 196
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Everything is interrelated. The absence of enterprises and low salaries immediately result in youth outflow. Youth outflow causes low birth rates (FG1).
Rural actors were seriously worried about the level of unemployment in rural areas. The current tendency of the rural labour market is characterized by structural unemployment. On the one hand, there are many unclaimed low-paid vacancies (there are work places, but there are no interested workers to do that kind of work); on the other hand, there is a surplus of specialists not-in-demand (i.e. there are people who want to work, but there are no work corresponding to their specialty). The problem of structural unemployment is linked with the low prestige of agricultural work, low salaries in agriculture, difficult work conditions, low productivity, and with the lack of modern technologies.
The salary of a specialist is almost nothing. I’m working by habit. Now I have a salary of 10 thousand. I have a higher education, 25 years of work experience. I can make any operation, but I’m losing my qualifications since there is no practice. If I would work in a city, I would receive 30-40 thousand (FG3).
Among the most acute problems that were mentioned was the development of infrastructure. Participants of FG1 divided it into two groups: social infrastructure and industrial/production infrastructure. Social infrastructure includes roads, water pipes, sewerage system, gasification, schools, kindergartens, rural clubs etc. Industrial/production infrastructure is concerned with the development of agro-production.
We do not have an industrial infrastructure as there are no conditions for the purchase of agricultural products; there is no organised market (FG1).
Respondents have noticed that the major problem of the post-Soviet rural areas is the disruption of linkages between the agro-producers, the processors, the sellers and the buyers of agricultural production. The absence of accurate and permanent linkages between the given actors generates difficulties in the planning of volumes of output of agro-production and, as a consequence, the producers cannot be assured that all agricultural production will be successfully sold for a sensible price for the producer.
197
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Linkages between the production, processing and selling are broken. It is one of the core problems which can affect prices, volumes and purchases of production. And if there are no such volumes [of production] there is no salaries, no people (FG1).
The main problem named by the local population is strongly connected to the previous problems. It is the sale of agricultural production and the low producer prices. The income from the household plots is a significant component of the income for the rural population, which explains their concern about the problem.
There is a big problem with the selling of agro-production. I produce eggs. It is an ecological production, but I sell them under the same price on which eggs are sold in shops (FG3).
I have the same problem with milk! It is horror! My cow gives 27 litres (of milk), and I do not know what to do with it (FG3).
The very important question is why there are such problems and what are the reasons for them? In these three groups there was no common answer to this question, but all groups agreed that the State plays a decisive role in the solving of these problems. Two focus groups, FG1 and FG2 (authority and business), thought that the reason behind the social problems of the rural areas can be found in the economic sphere, mainly stemming from the disparity of prices. The local population turned their attention to the political aspect.
The government first of all does not wish to accept the countryside (FG3).
The state negligence of rural areas and agriculture was designated as the major reason for the decline of village life. Respondents pointed out that the revival of rural areas is almost impossible without considerable support from the State.
Those government programs which are accepted, they are not sufficient. They could solve many problems, but... The state support is absolutely insufficient (FG1)
All groups brought up the question of the lacking and not sufficient information about government programmes for the supporting of the rural areas and the lack of other important information. These problems complicate the development of many of the household plots
198
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
owners and of farmers activity, interfering with their participation in various programmes paid for by the State, and these problems constrain the development of social partnerships in rural areas as potential partners do not know about each other’s activity and as a consequence cannot find interaction points.
Heads of administration do not give the information to the population, but they should work with the population (FG2).
Nobody knows about the credit cooperative. Subsidies are given to the population if they take the credit. This programme works, and population does not know that it exists (FG2).
When analyzing the problems of the Russian villages, it is necessary to note that many all- Russian problems have become aggravated in the rural areas due to the low income level of the population. This idea was stated in the second group (no money, no work). Respondents have noticed for example that in many villages people often have problems in purchasing expensive medical products.
Financial problems were discussed extensively in all three groups. Anyway, the lack of financial resources is not only a problem of lacking resources. The problem is that local actors do not perceive many resources as resources. For the majority only material and financial ones are resources. Local actors are not able to estimate local resource possibilities and very often concentrate on looking for external resources (mainly the ones the State provides). Existing but underexploited local resources are a big potential help for territory development, and therefore it is very important to analyse the possibilities for the formation of new resources for local development. During FG1, the following aspects on searching for local resources were brought up:
There are certain natural, human and labour resources which can be found in each territory; everyone, maybe even the village administration can find them. A programme of independent, self-sufficient development concerning the resources
199
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
should be designed. Since we have this kind of territory…which is absolutely diverse39 (and every territory has its own ways out of the existing situation.
In a situation where the State is not capable of giving to the local government the necessary amount of financial support, the mobilisation of all available resources for local development should become a key task.
Table 17: Key problems of the Semenov district
x Disparity of prices x Problem of selling agro-production and low producer prices x Disruption of linkages between agro-producers, purchasers, processing and selling of agro-production x Unemployment x State inattention x Weak infrastructure
Ways to solve problems
At the beginning a very negative attitude about what could be done was expressed. “It seems to me that these problems cannot be solved” (FG2). Anyway, later discussion shows that the list of things that should be done is correlated with list of problems (see appendix). The disparity of prices must be solved. Enterprises, which survived during the years of restructuring, need to be supported. In order to save the remaining enterprises, there must be a clearer credit policy. It is necessary to develop different types of cooperatives, particularly processing cooperatives. The creation of processing cooperatives and their further development could solve the local problems of selling and processing agricultural production (for example the centralised face of cattle). During the discussions it was also pointed out that in addition to the development of cooperatives, there are also the problems of the creation of a collateral base at the level of district administration. The system of how to handle the enterprises facing bankruptcy must be renewed. At present the system only causes the current conditions of agro-enterprises to deteriorate. Further development of a Rural Advisory Centre
39 differentiated countryside by T. Marsden 200
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
is indispensable. FG2 mentioned that it must be seen as a key aspect of local rural development.
An additional area for development is handicrafts. There needs to be a Council of Handicraft Production as a part of the administration. Problems with infrastructure were also mentioned; the foremost of these were the provision of gas-based energy for the villages and the construction and maintenance of roads.
Who should solve the problems?
In all focus group the State was held responsible for all or the majority of the problems. Participants appeal to both federal and regional levels.
In the first instance, the State should solve problems (FG1).
Certainly! All basic problems [must be solved by] the State and all other (problems) will also have been solved then (FG2).
Even if the initiative is coming from below, the State has a decisive role. The grants for the Shelter will not be possible if there is no State (federal or regional) financing of the shelters as such. The Cooperatives will not work if there is no state programme for the creation of cooperatives. And there will not be future development if the State does not continue or even increase its financial assistance.
The participants had both negative and positive attitudes towards the State. The positive attitudes were connected to the federal and regional programmes and projects; negative attitude had to do with the size of State assistance: it was thought to be too small or lacking altogether.
That what they are doing is a drop in the sea, and it does not help. Because of it, naturally, there is a decline; there is an outflow of the population, the young population (FG3).
The government does not give money to the villages (FG3).
201
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Members of FG1-2 delegated to the State even tasks which should be taken care of by the family (according to FG3): bringing up children and training them to work. The State was also held responsible for the fact that people do not want to be involved in agro-production.
It’s also a state issue, meaning that people should be trained to work from childhood (FG1).
There is no education from side of the State. Of the people (FG2).
People have already been made not accustomed to work in agriculture. The desire to be engaged in agriculture has been beaten off (FG3).
Different opinions were expressed about who is responsible for rendering services. One opinion stated that the State is responsible for them (albeit including local self-government and putting it into authority/financial vertical); according to another opinion the services should be provided by enterprises, which can deliver these services much better.
It doesn’t turn out to be very effective if done by authorities (FG1).
A second important actor responsible for solving local problems is the local self-government and even more narrowly – the local administration or the person heading the rural municipality. Deputies are not seen as real actors, as a part of local self-government (at least they were not discussed at all). Participants mainly referred to the heads of rural municipalities.
The activity of the person heading the rural municipality depends very much of the personal characteristics. There are people who are active; there are those who don’t do anything (FG1, FG3). An active head of a village is able to find money to solve local problems; s/he can knock on any door in order get/find money (FG3); s/he actively communicates with the local population, informs them about new programmes (FG1). A non-active head of rural administration “does care about the youth nor about water and roads” (FG3), s/he promises, but doesn’t do what has been promised (FG3), s/he is “not interested in taking initiative and did not show any initiative” (FG1), s/he does not give information to the people (FG2), “there is no help from the administration” (FG2), “heads of administration practically do not work with the people” (FG2). 202
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
According to the participants, the responsibility of the heads of rural municipalities is very wide on one hand. “Basic principles of organisation of local self-government in the Russian Federation (assistance in agricultural production development, creation of conditions for development of small and medium business)”, states Paragraph 28, article 14 of Federal Law 131, and this is understood widely as referring to the heads of rural municipalities.
Heads of village administrations are responsible for their territory’s conditions (FG1).
Local administrations should play a key role in the development of their territory (FG1).
It is part of their duties (about distribution of information among local population) (FG2).
And it’s for nothing that the law on municipalities lays responsibilities on the heads of village administrations. These responsibilities involve organizations, co- operatives and, partially, even the organization of labour (FG1).
On the other hand, it is almost impossible to do anything at local level. Municipal district level is weak. At the level of settlements there is almost a complete lack of resources for development. Local self-governments (both at settlement and district levels) have to have an organising role.
The organising chain must come from local authority (FG2).
The local population is also responsible for solving local problems. This opinion was mainly expressed in the FG 3 (local resident’s focus-group). This group sees as their own fault the conditions of life they have now, highlighting the unwillingness of the people to solve the problems and the excessive reliance on State support. Active local entrepreneurs pointed out this unwillingness of local people to show initiative.
You want that all has to be chewed for you and to be put in your mouth! And why are you not interested? (FG2)
203
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In the FG1 the role of the local population as an actor was not discussed at all. Post-soviet local authority inherited a disparaging attitude to the local residents from their soviet predecessors. As a rule, the population was viewed only as users of services and as an entity which couldn’t be of any benefit. They do not see that rural dwellers can be active actors and carriers of ideas for local development.
The Rural Advisory Centre (RAC) was seen as an important local actor. There were very positive attitudes expressed in all groups about the activity of the Centre. “We use the consultations of this centre very often. They help us in all [issues]” (FG3). Participants pointed out that the centre has to team up with local population/actors in order to solve local problems (FG2), i.e. the Centre has to play a key role in local development. During all FGs the role of the RAC was not strongly discussed, but it was clear that the Centre really plays a key role in the development of rural territories of the study district. Among all participants, only one local entrepreneur (working in trade) did not know about the activity of the RAC. This could be explained by the fact that he is a town-dweller and does not have any connection to agriculture and rural areas. All other participants were very familiar with the activities of the RAC.
The Rosselkhozbank (Russian Agricultural Bank) is a 100% state-owned bank regulated by the Central Bank of Russia. It is an agent of the Government of the Russian Federation for providing financial services to agricultural business and to the rural population. According to the participants the Bank should help agricultural producers, but in reality the help the bank gives is very meagre (FG1-2).
In FG1-3 the above-mentioned actors were discussed. Their roles in local development are different; anyway, the priority position was given to the State. During the focus-groups moderators tried many times to go down from the federal to local level, but the participants repeatedly returned to the responsibility of the State.
The efforts of the local authorities and businessmen are virtually useless without the State support. State support comes first; and only after that should there be any responsibility of the municipality, or of the business community, or social responsibility (FG2).
204
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Actions already executed in the Semenov district
The group consisting of local people was very critical, and their first reaction to this question was negative, “Nothing was done!” Further discussion revealed only two things which had been done. They were the creation of the Credit Cooperative and the subsidies given by the State. In the groups consisting of representatives of the authorities and business, the discussion about things done turned again to discussion about what should be done. The creation of the Credit Cooperative as a positive thing was mentioned in all FGs. “It is already done, it is working very well” (FG3). The Cooperative solves the problems through the micro financing of household plots and farmers. This leads to the solving of other local problems. “People are engaged in business, they go for work. This chain tightens all behind itself. It organises people” (FG2).
An ideal village
The final topic in focus groups was the question about an ideal village would look like. Almost all respondents agreed that the ideal village is the village of the past, the village of the Soviet time.
Ideal village is the village of my childhood (FG2).
It was… There are dreams of the past. There were very good agricultural producers, big enterprises (FG1).
A village was ideal. When we graduated from the agricultural institute, the apartment was allocated to us. We had a good salary, kindergarten, sports complex, school. All necessary conditions were created, social and industrial infrastructures were developing in rural areas. Everything was in the village. And we (the specialists) came to work in rural areas (FG1).
Stable agricultural production, according to respondents, was a basis for the development of rural areas during the Soviet period, and this was destroyed in 1990s, which in turn has led to various social and infrastructural problems.
205
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Nowadays the village has died; its life has come to a standstill. The village is dependent on the State for its survival (FG2).
However, respondents thought that the process of decline of the rural areas is not an irreversible process, and, should the State want it, all areas could be revived; it would be possible to create conditions for the successful development of agricultural and industrial enterprises in rural areas.
In my opinion, let us take our village as an example, all areas can be revived. It is necessary to make roads, to spend funds on gas; it is necessary for the village. It is necessary to create workplaces... Strengthening of the economy, of farms and cooperatives is necessary. It is necessary, for the collective farm to be revived that there are workplaces, that there is professional staff... (FG2).
All groups discussed the inaccuracy of the State policy concerning rural areas and the wrong order of priorities the State development plan has.
The priorities must be directed on the development of agriculture. Then all problems will be solved. Without strong villages there will not be a strong State (FG1).
A person not respecting the land does not respect him/herself either. Also, therefore there is no State development (FG1).
Thus, the representations of the ideal village are linked with memories of the Soviet village, with a collective-farm control system and a strong state influence on the functioning of agricultural enterprises. This opinion was expressed more strongly in the groups consisting of the representatives of the authorities and business. The group consisting of local people told that the ideal village would be real if it was possible to create conditions for the development of agriculture and construct or reconstruct village infrastructure. So, the local inhabitants are looking at the future of Russian villages with hope, asserting that the ideal village can exist in the future.
206
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Focus group session 4
Comments on the problems of Semenov district
On the basis of results of three FGs the fourth group was brought together. Its main task was to reveal those problems which can be solved at local level, to consider the offers made in FG1-3, and to discuss the structures which could be engaged in solving these problems; specifically they were to discuss what should be done and who should be responsible for it.
All groups maintained that the role the State plays in solving rural problems is crucial. Discussion of what the State should and could do caused lively discussions, but the goal of the FGs was another, namely to look at what could actually be done and by whom. It was very difficult to shift the discussions away from nation-wide problems and back to the local level. As a result the main question for the mixed group was defined as what would be possible to do at local level to solve the problems of the rural areas with existing State support of agriculture and rural territories, and who could/should do it?
Because the available time of the last FG was limited, only a few selected problems were chosen for discussion. The problems and the various solutions to them are presented below.
Lack or insufficiency of information
All groups mentioned the lack/insufficiency of information given to the rural population. It was noted that the people do not know about the programmes or projects developed at State level; for example, people in several rural municipalities do not know about the existence of the Credit Cooperative "Kerzhaki" and its activity.
First time I heard about it (about the possibility to store money in the Cooperative’s deposits)… Therefore it would be necessary to meet, to make sure that you have shown all your cards to us completely. That everything becomes clear, everything becomes transparent...
There is lack of information on every level about the situation of the rural areas. Earlier there was a TV-programme “Rural Hour”, and there was a local radio station which could be heard in every village. The lack of information is now felt both on the State level as well as on local
207
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
level. The local TV in Semenov district is a cable TV which is accessible only to the inhabitants of Semenov town. A radio station with broadcasting radius of 12 km is not enough, so most of the villages and their inhabitants are left without the services of a local radio. Not all rural dwellers have the possibility to get local newspapers, and even if they did, it is likely that there is not enough information about rural areas and rural life.
Local radio exists, but it is practically impossible to hear it in villages. Earlier the radio played a large role in rural areas.
There is almost nothing about agriculture on TV.
The Rural Advisory Centre partially functions as a distributor of information as well, but, as our research shows, it is not enough. In the FGs several suggestions were made how to solve this problem. The main results of the discussions are in table 18.
Table 18: Ways to solve the problems of the Semenov district
Problems and ways to solve them Who could solve the problem Local radio: to increase the capacity of the broadcasting transmitter up to 100 KW in order District administration: by putting into the to increase broadcasting radius. The people in district budget the purchase of a new the villages have receivers, but they cannot get broadcasting transmitter. local radio programmes, because the current coverage radius is only 12 km. District administration: decision making and financing of the additional pages. Local newspaper: Add to the local newspaper once a month extra page(s) which will focus on Village administration: informing the rural areas and rural life thus providing space for people about the existence of these pages discussions and giving out information. Rural Advisory Centre: preparation of information for the pages. Distribution of information: Installation of information stands in the premises of rural administration, RAC and district administration. On these stands people can put up Rural Advisory Centre, village and announcements and can also receive any kind of district administrations information. The extra information pages of the local newspaper or the whole newspaper could also be put up on the same information stands 208
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Rural Advisory Centre (roundtables will Organising roundtables for people once every promote the establishment of contacts three months inviting representatives of between agricultural producers, in order administration, employees of the Department of to find of ways to solve concrete small Agriculture and others to participate. problems which they face)
The improvement of the distribution of information among the local population involves many of the actors operating in rural areas. The Credit Cooperative, RAC, district authorities and rural authorities should solve the specific problems together. However, from all the listed organisations only the RAC is ready to take responsibility for solving the problems.
A representative of the district authority told about the difficulties in organizing these things, whilst all the time being confronted with financial issues (“it is necessary to pay”, “nobody will do it free of charge”, etc.). There was no positive answer to the question whether the district authority could take the responsibility to bring this question for discussion in the local Duma or in the local (district) administration. Recommendations were written and sent to members of these bodies, but there was no answer.
The desire of the RAC to participate in solving the local problems could partly be explained by personal characteristics of the employees of the Centre (active people, high quality specialists; the majority of them are rural people). Another reason is that the RAC works directly with the people; they know their problems and needs. Besides, the distribution of information is one of the functions of this organisation.
Possible partnership relations between the Union of Entrepreneurs and the Credit Cooperative
In the situation of limited financial resources the search for local resources for local development is one of the key tasks in many territories. This task is especially important in rural areas. The Credit Cooperative “Kerzhaki” serving the agricultural population of the Semenov district has experienced financial difficulties too. The big problems are connected with the policy of the Rosselkhozbank which, having 100 % of the State capital, should be channelling the financial resources of the State to the consumers. Unfortunately, as was already noted, this takes place with long delays and is accompanied with difficulties and restrictions.
209
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Rosselkhozbank practically cannot work with us in normal way. The bank puts severe constraints on us.
Therefore the search for local resources for the Cooperative is an important task as one of the aims of the cooperatives is to establish cooperation with other interested parties, for example, with processing cooperatives or with entrepreneurs.
Partnership relations between the Union of Entrepreneurs and the Credit Cooperative were named as one of the ways to solve the problem of finding local resources. As associate members of the Credit Cooperative, entrepreneurs can bring money to be stored by the Cooperative under the condition of being paid a certain interest rate. Furthermore, this money can be used to extend credit to small agricultural producers (to farmers and household plot owners) for targeted purposes. Taking into account the compensation of the interest rate for target credits offered by the State, such cooperation can be very favourable to both parties.
There, basically, should be this cooperation. This is one of the lines of work of the Cooperative. Later on it will be worked out: cooperation with processing cooperative and with entrepreneurs.
The Cooperative is responsible for the establishment of a mutually advantageous partnership between the Union of Entrepreneurs and the Credit Cooperative. It is necessary to make calculations in order to develop favourable conditions for both parties within the limits of partnership relations. Unfortunately, at present the majority of entrepreneurs do not know about the existence of the Credit Cooperative nor do they know about the possibilities of favourable cooperation with it; the Cooperative is not ready to engage in working out of this question. Besides, the idea has not been supported by the district authority, by the RAC or by the representatives of other organizations.
The Union of Entrepreneurs is not a juridical person. It is only an NGO [so, the Union cannot give money].
There are only words. He [the entrepreneur] is trying to perform functions which are not given to him.
210
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
It could be a private transaction between an entrepreneur and the Cooperative. It could be only a private initiative.
Why did this person tell that he can give money to the Credit Cooperative? So that he can look good?
He can only give [money] as a private person.
So, in the situation where nobody supports the idea, the Credit Cooperative will not use this possibility for local fund raising. Even the big sum, which an entrepreneur said he could deposit in the Cooperative, will not help (“Could you give 100 thousand RUB? – I can give one million, if the conditions and transactions will be transparent and mutually favourable”). To continue to contend with Rosselkhozbank for the State resources seems to remain the main way for the Cooperative to solve its financial problems.
Increasing the district pledge fund
The increasing of the collateral base can help solve the problems of the microcredit offered to agricultural producers. The district administration has already created the pledge fund, but it is necessary to endeavour to increase it in order to help agricultural producers and cooperatives to get the loans. The district administration should take responsibility for this task.
Besides, there is another important problem, that of collateral security given to the banks for the loans they grant. The district administration can act as the guarantor in Rosselkhozbank for the "Kerzhaki" Cooperative’s loans. Closer cooperation between the district authorities, the Department of Agriculture and the Credit Cooperative is needed. Currently there are serious difficulties as the district authorities do not always cooperate with the Credit Cooperative.
Last year when I asked the administration to act as the guarantor of a sum… it has not happened. I have solved this problem in a privately: I have found a farmer, who became the guarantor for us [the Cooperative]. The administration could not become a guarantor for us.
211
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
So, the mechanisms and/or interrelations between the actors must be worked out. Presently these relations are mainly based on the control function the district authorities and the Department of Agriculture exert over the Cooperative (see more about it in part 3).
The creation and enlivening of the activity of the Council of Handicrafts
Handicraft production was not widely spread in the Semenov district during the last years. Traditional kind of crafts such as weaving from birch bark, rods and others have almost disappeared.
Handicraft production was developed in our district, but its roots have been ruined. People from the Semenov district were always engaged in crafts. Here, in this place the representative of handicrafts worked. It was 20 years ago. He was engaged in crafts: in the organisation and the sale. And nowadays handicraft production has already been forgotten.
In order for the people to continue to be engaged in this kind of activity, the organisation of the people is necessary. This can take place through the creation of an association for handicraft production and for the entrepreneurs who are engaged in trade. A special department of the district administration or some specialist could be responsible for making this happen.
The administration has to help. The local authorities have to take responsibility for these questions.
The task of the Department of Handicraft could be for example the creation of an information database of types of handicraft, the producers of handicrafts and of entrepreneurs and shops involved in the trade of handicraft production. Through the creation of and through actively working on establishing a chain from production to trade, the district administration can increase the self-employment of the rural population thus impacting the solving of other social problems of the villages as well. The heads of rural municipalities can also be involved in this chain, as they are familiar with the villages and can therefore also promote the development of handicrafts.
212
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
In the last focus group a representative of the district authorities pointed out that there is one specialist in the administration who is involved in handicrafts. His/her activity is probably mainly concerned with the development of a company producing “Khokhloma” artifacts, but is not very much concerned with other crafts.
Relevant actors in the development of the Semenov district
There are a number of relevant actors in the development of the Semenov district: external actors, internal actors at municipal district level and internal actors at the village level. Those working at local level are internal actors, even if they are representatives of State authorities.
External actors
Among external actors who actively participated in social partnerships at local level could be mentioned: 1. “Partner’s Council” local community fund 2. Nizhny Novgorod’s Agricultural Advisory Centre (part of Ministry of Agriculture, previously an NGO) 3. The Credit Cooperative of the second level (regional association of credit cooperatives) 4. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Resources 5. Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment 6. Department of Federal Services on Labour and Employment of population
Participation in social partnerships mainly takes place through representatives at district level (like the Ministry of Agriculture participates through the district level Department of Agriculture) or through the Rural Advisory Centre.
Local (internal) actors of district level
1. Municipal district authority 2. Department of Agriculture, part of the regional Ministry of Agriculture 3. Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment, part of the Government of Nizhny Novgorod Region 4. The Rural Advisory Centre, part of the regional Ministry of Agriculture (earlier NGO) 213
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
5. Industrial enterprises 6. SME 7. Credit Cooperative 8. Processing Cooperative 9. Banks (Rosselkhoz bank and Savings bank)
Local (internal) actors of village level
1. Local population 2. The settlement (municipal) authority 3. Agro-enterprises 4. SME 5. Social sphere (schools, clubs, the Shelter, etc.)
Partnership relations
During FGs opinions about the necessity of cooperation were pointed out.
First, all these problems should be solved as a whole.
These are interrelated issues, and they should be settled collaboratively.
Partnership relations are mainly based on projects. The three projects connect the actors; the Rural Advisory Centre plays a central role in the networking of the social interaction. It has a leading role both in the forming of social partnerships between actors, and in the maintenance of mutual relations between them. The RAC has very strong communication links with all actors of the projects of this study. During focus groups the leading role of the RAC was discussed both as existing in real life and as desirable.
According to the focus groups, two other important actors/participants are the rural authorities and the local people. During the focus groups local people, members of the RAC told that the rural (village) authorities have to work more closely with the local people. Many participants pointed out that the rural authorities have to have a leading role at local level especially in the villages where there are no agricultural enterprises.
214
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
The role of the rural authorities was evaluated in different ways. In some cases they play an important role in local development, in other cases the authorities have a very passive role. The heads of rural municipalities were surprised by the request to work more closely with the local people, and stated that they already work closely enough.
How could we be closer? Just to kiss… (FG4).
However, many local residents pointed out the lack of information about activities of the rural authorities. This is not just a reflection of the “poor quality” of work done by the rural authorities, it also has to do with the disinterest of the local people: they are not interested in the activities of the authorities or village life in general (people seldom go to meetings; they are not very interested in the development of local self-government).
As we already noted, the local people were regarded as a passive, non-organized actor. An active leader is needed in order to activate and involve the rural residents in local development.
Not all interactions among the actors can be defined as partnership. Social partnership relations have to have three main characteristics: actors from different spheres, shared resources and common goals. Some of the interrelations mentioned during focus groups cannot be defined as social partnerships. For example, relations between the Rural Advisory Centre, the Department of Agriculture and the district authorities do not qualify as social partnership. All of these actors are from the public sector and their relations are based on their professional duties. In this respect more cooperation would be necessary over the narrow limits of sectors to enhance the scope of the efforts of rural development.
Desirable relations
The nature of desirable relations between the actors was discussed many times during the focus groups. The leading role is given to the State, and for some participants of the focus groups the State is responsible for everything. Other participants pointed out that the State already has taken many good steps to help the development of rural areas. Anyway, it is necessary for the State to have some kind of relations also with the local actors. At the local scene new partnership relations are desirable, and one of the main positions was given to the
215
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
creation of a processing cooperative and the establishment of relations with the local population and other actors.
This was already the second attempt to create a processing cooperative. The first attempt was done in 2007 and the cooperative was created, but the leader of the cooperative was not active and it did not even start at that time. The second attempt to create the processing cooperative was in 2009. The cooperative “Kerzhenetskie prostory” (Kerzhenet’s Open Spaces) was created by the district administration on the basis of Il’inozaborskii agricultural enterprise. At the moment there are six members in the cooperative, which has also a new leader. They plan to start with milk processing and in the future plans are cattle and meat processing as well.
There are high hopes attached to this cooperative for the solving of the problems of the village. The most desirable partnership is between the cooperative and the local population. The cooperative will buy milk and other agricultural products from the local people. Links with other actors are necessary, too.
Traditionalism vs. innovativeness
A serious problem, which was revealed during the focus groups, is the unwillingness of many of the local actors to change the existing order of things, to search for new ways of solving problems. Inertia in decision-making is a serious problem interfering with the development of social innovations.
80 years of the Soviet power have left us unaccustomed to work. In the past there was a general equalization (of salaries), when the people making initiatives received the same amount as idlers... And this, naturally, has left traces in our nation (FG2).
During the Soviet period of Russian history the local authorities had to follow accurately the leading and the line of action given by the party, and instructions were given from above and their performance was accurately checked. In such conditions there remained very little space for local initiative. The excessive hope placed on the State and the unwillingness to solve local problems on their own, are in many respects based on that tradition.
216
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
On the other hand, during the implementation of our research project we have seen very active and innovative actors both at village and district levels. These actors have new ideas or they re-think and re-work old ideas and implement them in the new environment. In some cases, traditionalism walks arm-in-arm with innovativeness.
Focus group study in Lithuania
Execution of focus group study in Lithuania
Four focus-groups were conducted in Lithuania. Group 1 was a group of local administration and a local NGO, group 2 was group of local entrepreneurs, group 3 included local inhabitants. It was very difficult to find local entrepreneurs and conduct the second group, because there is almost no business in Balninkai. After the bankruptcy of a renovation company there is only one enterprise for rural tourism left.
Table 19: Participants of focus groups 1-3 in Balninkai Group 1 Person A Female Representative of the local administration, specialist Person B Female Head of the local administration Person C Female Leader of the community centre
Group 2 Person D Female Owner of a rural tourism place Person E Male Owner of a rural tourism place Person F Female Artist, local entrepreneur
Group 3 Person F Female Local inhabitant, artist Person G Female Local inhabitant, pensioner Person H Female Local inhabitant, pensioner Person I Female Local inhabitant, pensioner, former teacher Person J Female Local inhabitant, member of the community centre Person K Male Local inhabitant, pensioner Person L Female Local inhabitant, social worker Person M Female Local inhabitant, non-employed Person C Female Local inhabitant, leader of the community centre
Table 20: Participants of focus group 4 in Balninkai Group 4 Person A Female Representative of local administration, specialist Person B Female Head of the local administration Person C Female Leader of the community centre Person F Female Artist, local entrepreneur
217
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Person N Female Local inhabitant Person O Female Local inhabitant, works at the museum of glass Participants who took part in the FG 1–3 in bold
Focus groups 1-3
Problems of Balninkai
Participants of all focus groups agreed that the main problem in rural areas, and also in Balninkai, is unemployment: “Big unemployment” (FG1), “Shortage of work places” (FG3). The unemployment problem creates many others: use of alcohol, discrepancies in families, etc. “Less working places, more use of alcohol”. “There are no bars or restaurants in Balninkai, but a lot of drunk people are sitting near the road” (FG2).
Another problem identified by local residents and entrepreneurs is apathy, passiveness and lack of enthusiasm of the local dwellers. Some enthusiasts do everything (“We had a lot of ideas but majority said NO from fear… They are afraid to take steps forward” (FG2)), but other rural dwellers are quite passive, “no community spirit” (FG3). People do not think about the welfare of the community, they just concentrate on their own lives. “People are too much concentrated on material things. We need more spirituality, moral values” (FG3).
The problem of the infrastructure was discussed by local residents and local administration and NGO groups. Participants of focus group discussions emphasized the shortage of facilities in rural areas and the poorly developed infrastructure. They said that the facilities and the infrastructure were better during Soviet times (they remember that time with some kind of nostalgia) than what they are now. There is no hairdresser’s saloon, no cafeteria, no chemist’s, and there are no sauna facilities in Balninkai. A daily bus goes just to Ukmerge. A bus to the nearest town Moletai goes just on Tuesdays and Fridays.
“If you want to buy medicine for 5 litas, you also have to pay 20 litas for the bus ride to town and it takes you all day” (FG3). “The doctor comes twice a week, but he just gives a sheet of paper – you have to go to buy medicine”. “So, the social worker often goes to buy medicine, and I also go…” (FG1).
218
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 21: Key problems of Balninkai
x Unemployment x Infrastructure x Passivity of the local people x Bureaucratic obstacles for the development of small and medium business. x Out-migration and the aging of the population in rural areas. x Insufficient financial support from the State
Local residents have identified more problems than the representatives of other groups. In addition to the problems mentioned above there are also the following problems:
Bureaucratic obstacles to the development of small and medium business. This problem is highly connected to the above mentioned problem of unemployment, which could be solved if people started their own businesses. But in case there are no opportunities to start a business, the problem of unemployment gets worse and has very unpleasant consequences.
“If people want to open a business, there is a lot of bureaucracy and you have to pay taxes and other fees. How is it possible to pay that if you haven’t received any money yet?”, “It’s very complicated to start business here in Lithuania” (FG3).
Out-migration and the aging of the population in rural areas. Residents of Balninkai emphasized the high rates of out-migration. “Young people leave the village, they go to towns”. “And nobody comes back” (FG3). The majority of Balninkai dwellers are pensioners.
“What could young people do here? This place is suitable for pensioners as they can enjoy the beautiful nature and the lakes.” “It is good to come back to your parents on weekends – to visit them, but not to live here. There are no jobs here”. “Every second house is empty” (FG3).
Financial support from the State is not sufficient. “I have a question: why are projects financed so little? The information is that a lot has been done for rural areas, financial support etc., but in fact they give 1000 litas and even from that they want to take back” (FG3).
219
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Ways to solve problems
In identifying common problems, the representatives of the three groups saw different ways to solve them. The solving of the problem of infrastructure should be done through the creation of a service centre, in which there could be “a house for elderly people” and “also some infrastructure/ facilities” (like sauna/bath) (FG3). There must be a place for meeting, selling, buying, and exchanging. “We want to establish a local market. We all will be sellers and customers. And, we could also exchange things” (FG3). Service centre “will change everything, there would be some work places, better infrastructure” (FG1). The group of entrepreneurs also supports the idea of the creation of a service centre.
Local residents pointed out the importance of requalification and supporting of ecological farming.
“All other products are 100 % ecological, we just don’t have certificates”. “If a woman has 4 cows, it is too expensive for her to create an ecological farm or to go to Kaunas for selling products” (FG3).
The local entrepreneurs see another way to solve problems – the rural people have to change.
“Now it is time for you to go into business. If you think (about it), you would find some new way.” “They want to get everything, but why would somebody give (them anything)? You have to think, not wait”. “It is time to live a contemporary life, not to live in the past. We don’t need the past, because it passed. We have to change our thinking and then think what we could change” (FG2).
Actions already executed in Balninkai
It was not difficult to remember which projects had been implemented. They all are mentioned in the poster on the wall (see photo 12) in the same room in which we had our focus group discussions with the local inhabitants, local administration and the NGO members and the mixed group.
220
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 12: The development of social innovation in Balninkai since 2001 (Photo: Jouko Nikula 2008)
The local inhabitants emphasized the service centre project (started in 2005, not finished yet) and the project “Battling Social Exclusion through Engagement in Arts“ (2003 – 2004). The purpose of the latter project was reviving traditional arts: weaving and knitting. The local entrepreneurs and local administration did not emphasize one project over the others. Representatives from local administration considered all projects as important and quite successful.
An ideal village
The final question in the focus groups was the question about the ideal village. This question was not new to Balninkai residents. Focus group discussants even showed a drawing where they expressed the vision of the Ideal Township – the future Balninkai (see figures 2 and 3).
221
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Photo 13: The future vision of Balninkai. (Photo: Jouko Nikula 2008)
Photo 14: The vision of “Good Balninkai” (Photo: Jouko Nikula 2008)
The vision of Balninkai is as follows (according to Balninkai community website): inhabitants of Balninkai taking initiative, working hand-in-hand with governmental, private and faith based organizations, to protect and to expand our cultural heritage and community.
222
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Local inhabitants see future Balninkai very optimistically. This optimism is related to the youth: “When the township gains life and beauty again, young people will return”, “Youth will return to do business in rural areas” (FG3). They envision the development of small business enterprises in the new service centre. The local administration also envisions a new service centre in future Balninkai. They also mentioned mobile sports facilities for children. The local entrepreneurs see Balninkai as quiet place for rural tourism.
Focus group session 4
Comments on the problems of Balninkai
Besides the problems mentioned in the groups 1-3, Balninkai community has also identified some problems (as presented on community’s website):
o the scenic surroundings of the township are underutilized for the purposes of tourism; o lack of active individuals who can initiate and implement community projects; o underdeveloped small business sector; o lack of cooperation within the community.
Considering the main ways how to solve problems, focus group participants emphasized the advantages of their township: conveniently situated in 75 kilometers from Vilnius, 30 km from Ukmerge, and 30 km from Anyskciai; clean and scenic surroundings; sandy beach, a shallow clean lake (excellent place for family vacations and vacations/rehabilitation for the disabled); revival of traditional crafts like weaving and knitting; good Internet connections in the community; there is an art gallery housing graphics and glass works exhibitions.
Participants of the mixed focus group emphasized the same possibility identified by FGs 1-3, i.e. to finish the building of the service centre. Some other ideas were presented too:
o to buy a micro-bus for taking old people to service centre and back home; o to organize summer school; o to create a sculpture park (for tourist attraction); o to open/make a bicycle paths around the lake (for tourist attraction).
223
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
During the FG several ways to solve problems were expressed. The main results of the discussion are in the table 22.
Table 22: Ways to solve problems of Balninkai Ways to solve problem Problems that could be solved Who could solve problems? Unemployment, lack of facilities, obstacles for the development of Service centre the State, municipality small and medium business, alienation of rural residents Micro-bus for taking old Lack of facilities, passiveness of people to the service Municipality rural residents centre and back home Unemployment, obstacles for the Rural school, local Summer school development of small and community medium business Sculpture park Obstacles for the development of Local community, local small and medium business inhabitants Bicycle paths Obstacles for the development of Municipality, local small and medium business community, local inhabitants People have to change Local community, local Passiveness of rural residents inhabitants
Relevant actors in the Balninkai’s development
Relevant actors for the village development are the local community, the local inhabitants, the rural school, the municipality and the State.
Social partnerships
The wheel as a symbol of Community Organization and representation of perception of social partnership symbolizes communal ties among all Balninkai inhabitants. The wheel represents the institutions of Balninkai Township: governmental office, Church, middle school, art gallery, post office, store and ambulatory office.
On the website, there is a call for partners who are interested in and would like to cooperate in activities promoting the ethno-cultural heritage and the traditions of Eastern Lithuania. The call is for partners who are interested in and able to facilitate rural small business development (ecological farming, rural tourism), and who are interested in creatively engaging teenagers and young adults. 224
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Social partnership is not a stable thing; over the time social partnership changes. Considering the partnership that was significant at the beginning of the decade, several aspects of social partnership can be identified:
x Local community participates actively in activities. x There was a social partnership between the local community organization and local government. x Social partnership with municipality: information and financial support x Social partnership with the Open Society fund: information and financial support. x Social partnership with Vilnius University: information.
Now the situation is different. During focus group discussions participants emphasized mainly social partnership of actors on local level: between the local community organization and the local government; between the local community organization and the rural school. There are also existing relations with the municipality which offers information and very little financial support, with other communities and NGO’s from different countries.
225
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
7. Comparative considerations and conclusions Jouko Nikula, Leo Granberg
Problems of local development and proposed solutions
From the beginning the key issue for us was whether the social innovations fulfill the criteria set by Moulaert et al. (2005) i.e. to what extent social innovations satisfy human needs and to what extent they change the social relations, and, finally, to what extent social innovations increase the socio-political capability of people or increase their access to resources? The table 23 below shows a summary of the social innovation projects we studied during the project.
Table 23. Summary table of Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
FINLAND RUSSIA LITHUANIA
Social Rock Village Children’s Sheep Credit co- Ethno- Balninkai innovation art - Sports - Shelter Project operative village Community project project tourism center- projects
Bottom-up - - + + - - + + +
Top-down + + + - + + ++ - +
Local - + + + + + + + + - + + + social needs
Local + social ? + + + + (very + - + + impact small)
Local + + + + + - + + Resources
External - + + + + + ++ - + + resources
Empower- ? + + - + + + + ment
Partnership (actors + + + + + + + + + from 226
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
different sectors)
Social - + + + - + + + + inclusion
Diffusion of - + - - - - + + innovation
+ = Yes; - = No; ? = cannot say As we could see from expert interviews and from focus group studies, the problems are rather similar in all countries, irrespective of the level of advancement of rural development policies or institutions. Ageing, depopulation, deindustrialization, loss of services and weakening of the financial basis are characteristic features of the current situation of the studied rural areas in Russia, Lithuania and Finland. The core problem for all countries is on one hand the lack of employment of young people, and on the other hand the lack of qualified labour. To a certain extent the problems were called “attitudinal problems or mental problems”, when passivity and lack of “entrepreneurial spirit” of the local population made the problems more persistent. Basically, however, this just represents a rational calculation of possibilities for success in the current economic environment. In Russia, and partly also in Lithuania, there is a lack of necessary mechanisms and policies of support, and in Finland there are allusions to the continuously tightening competition and to the need to make big investments in order to manage.
The current tendency in Finland is the concentration of agriculture in fewer and bigger farms. In Russia and especially in Lithuania, the dominating form of agriculture still is the household plot farming. The development of family farming has been extremely sluggish in both countries, even if there are clear signs of the growth of large-scale production. As a consequence of declining employment and decreasing incomes, social services and most private services (shops especially) are vanishing from rural areas. Most proposed solutions to the problems of local development were connected to the promotion of entrepreneurship at local level, either by creating a special place for entrepreneurship (Lithuania), or by creating a special institution for its promotion (Russia), or by encouraging local people to start their own private business (Finland, Lithuania). In all countries the issue of deficient infrastructure in rural areas, which seriously hampers the efforts of the local developers, was listed among the top-priorities. One could argue that the proposed solutions to local development problems 227
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
represent exogenous development policy, where the state or public officials are the main responsible actors. The strategy of encouraging local entrepreneurship is one of the core elements in the modern development policies, according to e.g. OECD.
In order to formulate hypotheses for the study of social innovations and social partnerships, we posed four key questions for the project:
1. What is the role of contextual factors in the success of social partnership and social innovation? 2. While analysing the actors and partnerships in social innovation processes, who are the initiators of the innovations, who disseminate them and who institutionalise them at the local level? 3. How is co-ordination and networking of territorial initiatives organised? 4. What kind of social consequences do the social innovations have?
The results indicate that the success of social innovations is not directly dependent on the level of socio-economic development or on the density of social networks. In fact, the most successful social innovations in our study were established in Semenov district in Russia, which is the least developed area of the study. In Semenov area the need for social innovations emerged after the collapse of the main employers (i.e. the collective farms) in the villages, which resulted in rising rural unemployment and poverty, which has then led also to serious family problems (such as alcoholism and crime).
In all countries the success of an innovation40 was based on the activity of few key actors, their commitment and skills in creating networks of support. This was crucially important especially in the first stages of innovations. In most cases the innovation was also “brought” to the local area, i.e. the innovation process was top-down. On the other hand, in most cases innovation responded to some local need.
o The Sheep Project was an effort to provide self-employment for villagers and to provide them with the means to avoid social marginalization. o The Credit Cooperative provided the means to finance small-scale entrepreneurship and farming in a situation where commercial banks refused to give loans.
40 Children’s Shelter in Russia, Village Sports in Finland and various projects in Balninkai, Lithuania 228
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
o The Children’s Shelter was relatively effective in counteracting an increase of orphans in the area. o In Finland the Village Sports –project has given villagers a chance to try out and to enjoy sports together, and it has provided for them a possibility to socialize with other villagers and summer residents. In that respect the Village Sports has had an empowering effect; it has been a method to create common social space and to increase social capital in the villages. o In Lithuania, in the village Balninkai, a common social space for fostering social capital was provided through the establishing of a public meeting place in the village house and by organizing various events and by organizing in the beginning information technology courses for villagers. These courses facilitated the creation of many new projects for the promotion of the local development. Some of the projects were directed to young people, and the focus of some was entrepreneurship. o In this study only two cases – the Rock Art Centre and the Ethno Village –project were endeavours with very low articulation of local needs or interests. Both of these cases are innovations with a low social innovation aspect; behind them are contested interests.
The projects which have clearly responded to a local need have also had the most palpable local impact.
o The Village Sports brought together a large number of local and summer residents, and it has supported the continuation of sports activities in the villages with a small population and limited resources. o In Russia the Children’s Shelter has given employment to local residents and furthermore, it has brought down part of the mistrust which existed between the Shelter and the local residents at the beginning of the project. o Both the Credit Cooperative and the Sheep Project have had some local impact, but only for a limited number of people. o In Balninkai Community, Lithuania, the series of projects have had a remarkable local impact. In the long run, however, both the number of projects and their impact has clearly been declining.
229
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
o In the case of the Ethno-Village and the Rock Art Centre the local impact has so far been very vague.
Most of the innovations empowered local people by providing them access to resources: financial resources in the case of Credit Cooperative; equipment and training resources in the case of Village Sports; in the case of Balnikai, the establishing of the village house ; and also by giving the people access to training courses (at the Balninkai Centre, as a part of the Sheep Project and, to some extent, also at the Children’s Shelter).
As far as local impact and local support are concerned, one thing is very clear: the majority of the “beneficiaries” and participants (and local supporters) are women, in particular, middle- aged women. On the contrary, the initiators and “managers” of many of the innovations have been men. The reasons for female activity are partly related to demographics, partly to gender roles in society and partly to the social processes in post-socialist countries. In all studied countries women form the majority among the rural residents. In many regions one of the consequences of the collapse of collective farming was that well educated middle class women remained unemployed and some of them became activists in rural development. Therefore, in Lithuania and in Russia, most of the projects were directed by an active woman. She was typically in her 40’s – 50’s, had a higher education and was or had been employed by the public sector as a teacher or as a librarian or in social services. There were very few men in any of the studied projects in Russia or in Lithuania. The only one was the director of the Credit Cooperative in Semenov. Other participating men acted as external partners or decision makers at regional or national level. In Finland there was quite an equal share of women and men in the projects. Another point to be noted is the small number of young people in the projects: even if there were young people among the participants of the projects, the core of the activist groups in all countries represents middle-aged or older people.
Only in a couple of projects were there found features of neo-endogenous development in the form of a network combining external resources with internal (or local) ones, thus creating innovations and producing means for further development.
o The most evident case was the Children’s Shelter project, in which the Director of the Shelter successfully brought together external resources (finances, advice and political support) and local resources (her own skills and the skills of the employees and local
230
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
residents, who worked for the Shelter). During the implementation of the project the initial combination of network relations was further strengthened and widened to include the political decision makers at oblast level, which was decisive to the stabilization of the operation of the Shelter. o Also the Village Sports project manages to combine external and local resources; the project funding comes from LEADER, through local action groups, the project gets expert advice from national organizations and it utilizes local sports clubs and local premises, e.g. schools. o To some extent there is a similar situation in Balninkai, where local level actors succeeded in combining external (financial, advisory) resources with local resources (local skills, premises, traditions). The other cases had mainly only external funding, but either had no local resources or the local resources were not utilized.
Many problems in the creation and successful operation of social innovations are related to social partnerships. This is critical, because the success of any social innovation is dependent on the active participation and support of the stake-holders at local level. Furthermore, the sustainability of a social innovation is dependent on the support and commitment from partners outside the local community.
o It seems that in the case of the Children’s Shelter (and also in the Sheep Project) preconditions are fulfilled – there has been active participation at local level and there has been support and commitment from outside the local community.
Another critical question is the short-termism in development policy, including short-term funding schemes.
o Especially the Sheep Project (and to some extent also the Credit Cooperative) is a warning example of an innovation which is mainly copied from another social and institutional context, without any deeper study of the local conditions. Such an imitation model easily meets with problems of ‘embeddedness’, that is, a lack of necessary institutional infrastructure and/or lacking local contributions. In the case of the Sheep Project, the lack of marketing, transport and processing have seriously hampered the success of the project and only a couple of people using their own resources have succeeded to develop their sheep production. In the case of the Credit
231
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Cooperative, the weak points are related to the inability of local political actors to provide necessary support and help to the Cooperative and are also related to an unclear relationship between the Cooperative and the State Bank. The relations are characterized by deep mutual mistrust – concerning the economic role and the importance of small scale producers by the bank’s representatives and concerning the aims and the agenda of the bank by the cooperative’s representatives.
In rural areas of Russia and Lithuania both civil society and local political administration are weak and, furthermore, the business community is not interested in investing in enterprises and activities in the countryside. In these circumstances the State is obviously the only actor having the capacity and the necessary resources to act. Therefore it is no wonder that most participants referred to the State, when defining the most important actor for the local development.
o In the Lithuanian case partnership relations seemed to function relatively well in Balninkai. Local activists get support from local actors (village administration, enterprises and villagers), and to some extent also from regional level. o However, in another case the structure of local administration at the lowest level seems to foster mistrust between local administration and the local projects – as the case of Ethno-Village shows. Most likely there is rivalry over status and authority between the local administration and the local projects – in a way the local projects question the authority of the local administration and their ability to take care of their duties.
The Lithuanian cases also testify about the degradation of some of the partnership relations after the introduction of the LEADER method in rural development policies. Former partners have been replaced by expert-client –relationships, because local activists are compelled to rely on external consultants in project planning and application for funding. That in turn has contributed to sentiments of losing “common interest” at local level and to the fading away of bonding social capital.
o In the case of the Ethno Village in Lithuania and the Rock Art Project in Finland it is possible to see segmentation of partnership relations and simultaneous mistrust, which effectively thwarts the efforts towards common development actions and policies. In
232
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
the Rock Art Project there seemed to be a lack of a jointly shared vision of the goal together with a lack of a common understanding of the means needed to achieve that goal. Instead there was a process of “encampment” of different interest groups around their own interest, which fostered further mistrust between the potential partners (administration, business and residents), even if most of them in principle agreed on the need for good partnership relations and concrete development policy41. o In the case of Village Sports the partnership has evolved gradually between stake- holders, and efforts have been made to reinforce both bonding and bridging social capitals. In the future the key issue is the sustainability of the project, in one form or another. In this respect the most important actor is often some supra-regional body (ESLI in the case of Village Sports), which constructs a functional system of funding together with regional actors. For the regional actors the project has much potential: in the fostering of local identity and a sense of community, in the creating of potential openings for local entrepreneurship and as a means to improve the quality of life of the local residents.
The amount of capital which the initiators and developers of social innovation have is crucial, regardless of its form, be it social, economic or other. It is a decisive factor determining to what extent it is possible to gather support from local and supra-local levels. There must also be a shared understanding over the means and goals of the local development efforts to guarantee the success of social innovation and to motivate effective social partnership. There has to be trust in social partnerships, that is, among other things, a shared understanding over the means and goals of the local efforts. Furthermore, if these efforts are contested, there should be at least a shared understanding of how to solve those disagreements.
Perhaps the most important potential of most of the studied social innovations is related to partnership. In its clearest form this is seen in Russia, where partnership relations were structured around the studied innovations and had a very important impact on the participants’ democracy skills – skills to organise, to formulate and to articulate their interests and skills to negotiate with other partners. This has also been evident in the case of Balninkai, where the IT-courses provided good training in cooperation and in attracting material and
41 After the research was over, in spring 2010, we heard about a turn in the project. All of a sudden, the municipality had taken the initiative and started to plan a minor Rock Art Museum in a new building which was to be built in the free port of its central village. 233
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
other forms of support. In Finland such skills have developed over a long time, thanks to the Village Movement (since late 1970s) and LEADER-experiences (since mid-1990s); however, in Finland also the Village Sports and probably also the Rock Art Centre –project were a means for social networking among different groups of people – local residents, summer residents, administrators, researchers and business. In that regard social innovations and partnership relations clearly increased the social capital at local level in all three countries.
In conclusion we argue that contextual factors do not play a decisive role in the success of a social innovation. The most important factors are related to the actors and to the relations between the actors. The set of social innovations we studied has a predominantly local and temporally limited impact. Each of them can mitigate some negative consequences of social change, but thus far it seems that they cannot be a major means in the long-term development policy. This, however, is valid for all innovations in the beginning. Innovations at that level are novelties and niches, which are put to practical test in only few cases. Nevertheless, as theory informs us, a successful niche may become more common and may challenge the rules and institutional structures of the society. If successful, the innovation will contribute to the birth of a new regime in the long run. This takes place through political rethinking, as well as through reforms and institutional changes. In that sense social innovations are a small, but a crucially important part in the efforts to create preconditions for a socially, economically and ecologically more sustainable future.
234
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Bibliography
Alasuutari, M. (2007). Kumppanuus ja asiantuntijuus varhaiskasvatuksessa. Psykologia 6/2007, 422-434.
Allardt, E. (1970). Hyvinvoinnin ulottuvuuksia. Porvoo: WSOY.
Amin, A. (1999). An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23, 365-378.
Andersen, O. J. (2008). A Bottom-Up Perspective on Innovations: Mobilizing Knowledge and Social Capital Through Innovative Processes of Bricolage. Administration & Society, 40 (1), 54-78.
Beck, U. (1998).World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blom, R. (2007). Introduction. In R. Blom (ed.), Managers in Russia: Still so Different? Aleksanteri Series 3/2008. Kikimora.
Bogner, A., Littig, B. & Menz W. (Hrsg.) (2002). Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Leske & Budrich, Opladen.
Borisov, V. (2001). Ȼɨɪɢɫɨɜ, ȼȺ. ɋɨɰɢɚɥɶɧɨɟɩɚɪɬɧɟɪɫɬɜɨɜɊɨɫɫɢɢ: ɫɩɟɰɢɮɢɤɚɢɥɢ ɩɨɞɦɟɧɚɩɨɧɹɬɢɣ?ɋɨɰɢɨɥɨɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɟɢɫɫɥɟɞɨɜɚɧɢɹ, ʋ5.
Boslaugh, S. (2007). Secondary Data Sources for Public Health. A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Brunori, G. & Rand, S. and Proost, J. (2008). Towards a conceptual framework for agricultural and rural innovation policies. WP1 Synthesis Report. Reports from final Conference of the in-sight project (October 2008). Cited 6.7.2010. Available on the internet: www.insightproject.net
Bstieler, L. & Hemmert, M. (2008). Developing trust in vertical product development partnerships: A comparison of South Korea and Austria. Journal of World Business, 43, 35- 46.
Carayannis, E. G. & Gonzalez, E. & Wetter, J. (2003). The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge management perspective. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation – A Unique Compendium Bringing Together the Leading Scholars in the Field of Innovation. UK: Elsevier.
235
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Constanza, R. & d’Arge & R. de Groot, et.al. (1997), The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
Crossley N. & Roberts J.M. (eds.) (2004). After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Sociological Review monograph. Oxford: Blackwell.
Csité, A. & Granberg, L. (2003). From Village Action to the Finnish Rural Policy Network. In A. Kjell & E. Eklund & L. Granberg & T. Marsden(eds.), Rural Development as Policy and Practice. The European umbrela and the Finnish, Brittish and Norwegian contexts. Research Institute, Swedish School of Social Science. University of Helsinki. Helsinki.
Danziger, J. N. (2004). Innovation in Innovation?: The Technology Enactment Framework. Social Science Computer Review, 22 (1), 100-110.
Day, G. (2006). Community and Everyday Life. The New Sociology. London: Routledge.
Day, G. & Hedger, M. (1990). Mid Wales: Missing the Point. Urban Studies, 27 (2), 283- 290.
Dees, J. G. & Anderson, B.B. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling Social Impact. Strategies for spreading social innovations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1 (4), 24-32.
Duffy, R. S. (2008). Towards a better understanding of partnership attributes: An exploratory analysis of relationship type classification. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 228–244.
Etelä-Savo 2025. Maakuntasuunnitelma (2005). Etelä-Savon maakuntaliiton julkaisu 67:2005. Mikkeli.
Etelä-Savon maakuntaohjelma 2007–2013 (2006). Etelä-Savon maakuntaliiton julkaisu 80:2006. Mikkeli.
EU (2008). The EU Rural Development Policy: Facing the Challenges. Cited 21.10.2009. Available on the internet: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/cyprus2008/brochure_en.pdf
EWCD (1994). European Parliament and Council: European Works Council, Council Directive 94/45, 1994 OJ (L 254).
Falk, I. & Kilpatrick, S. (2000). What is Social Capital? A Study of Interaction in a Rural Community. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (1), 87-110.
236
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Flynn, P. (1999). ‘European Works Councils: Practices and Development’, Speech by the European Commissioner With Responsibility for Employment and Social Affairs, 28 April, Brussels.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In: G. Burchell & C. Gordon & P. Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault effect. Studies in Governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault ( pp.87-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Franck, J. (2004). Ristiinan kalliotaidekeskus. Esiselvityksen loppuraportti. Etelä-Savon maakuntaliitto: hanke nro 23005, 1.5.2003–31.8.2004. [Ristiina Rock Art Centre, final report]
Freinet, C. (1994). Les œuvres pédagogiques (2 tomes). Paris: Ed. Seuil.
Furmankiewicz, M. & Thompson, N. & Zielinska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: The post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 52–62.
Geddes, M. (1998). Local Partnership: A Successful Strategy for Social Cohesion? European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Dublin.
Geddes, M. (2006). Partnership and the Limits to Local Governance in England: Institutionalist Analysis and Neoliberalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (1), 76-97.
Geoghegan, M. & Powell, F. (2006). Community Development, Partnership Governance and Dilemmas of Professionalization: Profiling and Assessing the Case of Ireland. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 845ņ861.
Gerometta, J. & Häussermann, H. & Longo, G. (2005). Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2007-2021.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goodwin, M. (1998). The Governance of Rural Areas: Some Emerging Research Issues and Agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (1), 5-12.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Oxford: Polity Press.
Habermas J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16, 411-426.
Hague, B. N. & Loader, B. (eds.) (1999). Digital Democracy. London: Routledge.
237
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Hann, C. (2002). Farewell to the socialist “order”. In: Hann C.M. (ed.) Postsocialism. Ideas, ideologies and practices in Eurasia. Routledge. London and New York.
Hazel, K. L. & Onaga, E. (2003). Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination: The Promise and Its Delivery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32 (3/4), 285-294.
Hiedanpää, J. (2007). Kollektiivinen yrittäjyys luonnon- ja kulttuuriarvojen tuotteistamisessa: tapaus Saimaa-Pielinen maailmanperintökohteeksi. Metlan työraportteja 52: 78–88. Cited 4.4.2008. Available on the internet: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2007/mwp052-08.pdf
Hirst, P. (2000). Democracy and Governance. In: J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp.13–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hisrich, R. & Langan-Fox, J. & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship, Research and Practice. A Call to Action for Psychology. American Psychologist, 62 (6), 575-589.
Hyyryläinen, T. (2007). Toimintaryhmätyö paikallisen kehittämisen metodina. Maaseudun uusi aika 3/2007, 20–36.
Hyyryläinen, T. & Kangaspunta, K. (1999). Paikallinen kumppanuuspääoma. Helsingin yliopiston Maaseudun tutkimus- ja kehittämiskeskuksen julkaisuja 63. Mikkeli.
Hyyryläinen, T. & Luostarinen, S. (1997). Luova kumppanuus. Paikallisen kumppanuuden alkuvaiheet Suomessa vuonna 1997. Helsingin yliopiston Maaseudun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja 58. Mikkeli.
Hyyryläinen, T. & Rannikko, P. (eds.) (2000). Eurooppalaistuva maaseutupolitiikka. Paikalliset toimintaryhmät maaseudun kehittäjinä. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Hämäläinen, T. J. & Heiskala, R. (2004). Sosiaaliset innovaatiot ja yhteiskunnan uudistumiskyky. Helsinki: Edita.
Ilmonen, K. (2000). Sosiaalinen pääoma: käsite ja sen ongelmallisuus. In: K. Ilmonen (ed.), Sosiaalinen pääoma ja luottamus (pp. 9-38). SoPhi, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Jyväskylä.
Jessob, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risk of failure: the case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 155, 28-43.
Jessob, B. (2002). Liberalism, neo-liberalism and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34, 452-472.
Jones, K. & Bird, K. (2000). “Partnership” as Strategy: public-private relations in Education Action Zones. British Educational Research Journal, 26 (4), 491-506.
Jones, O. & Little J. (2000). Rural Challenge(s): Partnership and New Rural Governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 171-183.
238
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Karhio, K. (2000). Paikallisen kumppanuuden pitkä tie. In T. Hyyryläinen & P. Rannikko (eds.), Eurooppalaistuva maaseutupolitiikka. Paikalliset toimintaryhmät maaseudun kehittäjinä. (pp.78 – 107). Tampere: Vastapaino.
Kenney, M. & Patton, D. (2003). Innovation and Social Capital in Silicon Valley. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. BRIEW 155. University of California.
Leiter, J. (2008). Nonprofit Isomorphism: An Australia–United States Comparison. Voluntas, 19, 67–91.
Leskinen, M. & Särkkä-Tirkkonen, M. (2002). Kalliotaiteenkeskus -selvitys. Helsingin yliopisto. Maaseudun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus. Mikkeli. [Rock Art Centre disquisition]
Lowe, P. & Ray, C. & Ward, N. & Wood, D. (1998). Participation on rural development: a review of European experience. Centre for Rural Economy Research Report, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Lowndes, V. & Skelcher, C. (1998). The Dynamics of Multi-Organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance. Public Administration, 76, 313-333.
Luostarinen, S. & Hyyryläinen, T. (eds.) (2000). Uudet kumppanuudet. Helsingin yliopiston Maaseudun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja 70. Mikkeli.
Makarenko, A. (1957). Collected Works in Seven Volumes (2nd ed.). Vol. IV, Moscow.
Malinen, P. (2000). Yhdentävän maaseutupolitiikan eurooppalainen tausta. In T. Hyyryläinen & P. Rannikko (eds.), Eurooppalaistuva maaseutupolitiikka. Paikalliset toimintaryhmät maaseudun kehittäjinä (pp. 22-45). Tampere: Vastapaino.
Malinen, P. & Kytölä, L. & Keränen, H. & Keränen, R. (2006). Suomen maaseututyypit 2006. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 7/2006. Helsinki.
McQuaid, R. W. (2000). The Theory of Partnerships. Why have partnerships? In Stephen P. Osborne (ed.), Public-private partnerships: theory and practice in international perspective. London: Routledge.
Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (2002): Expertlnnenininteriews – veilfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Bogner, A. & Littig, B. & Menz, W. (eds.) Das Experteninterview (pp. 71-95). Opladen: Leske &Budrich.
Miettinen, T. & Willamo, H. (2007). Pyhät kuvat kalliossa. Helsinki: Otava.
Millward, L. J. (2000). Focus Groups. In G. M. Breakwell & S. Hammond & C. Fife-Schaw (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 303–324). London: Sage.
239
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational Responses to Crisis. The Centrality of Trust. In M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations. Frontiers of Theory and Research. London: Sage.
Morgan, David L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
Moseley, M. J. (2003a). Rural Development. Principles and Practice. London: Sage.
Moseley, M. J. (ed.) (2003b). Local Partnership for rural development. The European experience.Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Moulaert, F. & Martinelli, F. & Swyngedouw, E. & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies, 42 (11), 1969–1990.
Mulgan, G. & Wilkie, N. & Tucker; S. & Ali, R & Davis, F. & Liptrot, T. (2006). Social Silicon Valleys: a manifesto for social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation 2006. London.
Mumford, M.D. & Moertl, P. (2003). Cases of Social Innovation: Lessons from Two Innovations in the 20th Century. Creativity Research Journal,15 (2/3), 261-266.
Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks – a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 407-419.
Murdoch, J. (2005). Networking rurality: Emergent complexity in the countryside. In: P. Clock & T. Marsden & P. Mooney (eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage.
Murray, R., Mulgan, G. & Caulier-Grice, J. (2009): How to Innovate: The tools for social innovation. Available in the internet: http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/publications/Generating_Social_Innovation_0. pdf
Mustakangas, E. & Kiviniemi, M. & Vihinen, H. (2003). Kumppanuus kuntatasolla maaseutupolitiikan toimeenpanossa. Maa- ja elintarviketalous 29. Helsinki: MTT Taloustutkimus.
Niemi, J. & Ahlstedt, J. (eds.) (2009). Suomen maatalous ja maaseutuelinkeinot 2009. MTT Taloustutkimus Julkaisuja 109. Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus. Helsinki.
Nikula, J. & Niskavaara, V. (1980). Ahvenselän-Pahkakummun kylätutkimus. Lapin seutukaavaliiton julkaisuja A:34. Rovaniemi 1980.
Oksa, J. (2004): New Actors and Challenges of Local Development. Presentation at the University of Joensuu 03.02.2004.
O’Toole, K. & Burdess, N. (2004). New community governance in small rural towns: the Australian experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 433-443.
240
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
OECD (2006). The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance. OECD Publishing.
OECD (2008). OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Finland. OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. (ed.) (2000). Public private partnerships: theory and practice in international perspective. London, Routledge.
Pentikäinen, J. & Miettinen, T. (2003). Pyhän merkkejä kivessä. Helsinki: Etnika.
Pierre, J. (2000a). Conclusions: Governance beyond State Strength In: Understanding Governance. In: J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp.241–246). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J. (2000b). Introduction: Understanding Governance. In: J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp.1–10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portes, A. (1995). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Public-Private Partnership (1999). A Guide for Local Government. Available on the internet: www.mcaws.gov.bc.ca
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pylkkänen, P. & Hyyryläinen, T. (2004). Mainstreaming of the LEADER method into rural development policies in Finland. New Rural Policy 4/2004, 22–32.
Rantanen, M. & Laanterä, S. & Kangaspunta, K. (2007). Kumppanuuspöytä ja alueellinen hyvinvointiverkosto. In M. Rantanen & K. Kangaspunta & S. Laanterä (eds.), Ilo toimia yhdessä. Uusia näkökulmia hyvinvointipalvelujen tuottamiseen (pp. 54-70). Helsingin yliopiston Ruralia-instituutin raportteja 20. Mikkeli.
Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous development in the EU. In P. Cloke & T. Marsden & P. H. Mooney (eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies (p.278–291). London: Sage.
Rhodes, R. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667.
Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy, Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhodes, R. (2000). Governance and Public Administration. In: J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp. 54-90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
241
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Rip A. & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In: S.Rayner and E. Malone (eds.), Human choices and climate change, vol.2. Columbus: Battelle Press.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed). New York: Free Press
Rose, R. (1999). What does social capital add to individual welfare? An empirical analysis of Russia.SPP 318. Centre for the Study of Public Policy. University of Aberdeen.
Rosenau, J. (2000). Governance in a Globalizing Spase. In: J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp. 167-200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saraceno, E. (1995). Recent Trends in Rural Development and their Conceptualization. Journal of Rural Studies, 10 (4), 321-330.
Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 49–59.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Seddon, T. & Billett, S. & Clemans, A. (2004). Politics of social partnership: a framework for theorizing. Journal of Educational Policy, 19 (2), 123-142.
Siisiäinen, M. (2004). Askel eteen, toinen taakse: sosiaalinen pääoma ja yhdistysanalyysi. In Blom, R & Nikula, J (eds.), Plussat ja miinukset. Yhteiskuntatutkimuksen arviointia. Tampere: Lumikki-kustannus.
Sorensen, H.T. & Sabroe S.& Cm-Sen, J. (1996). Framework for Evaluation of Secondary Data Sources for Epidemiological Research. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2 (2), 435- 442.
Stark, S. & Torrance, H. (2005). Case Study. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (eds.), Research Methods in the Social Sciences (p.33–40). London: Sage.
Stoker, G. (1997). Public-private partnerships and urban governance. In: G. Stoker (ed.), Partners in Urban Governance: European and American Experience (pp. 1-21). London: MacMillan.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 17-28.
Swyngedow, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42 (11), 1991-2006.
Taipale, V. & Hämäläinen, H (eds.) (2007). Kertomuksia sosiaalisista innovaatioista. Stakes. Helsinki.
242
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Terluin, I. J. (2003). Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 327– 344.
Toffler, A. (1980). Third Wave. Bantam Books.
Triglia, C. (2001). Social Capital and Local Development. European Journal of Social Theory, 4(4), 427-442.
Valtonen, A. (2005). Ryhmäkeskustelut – millainen metodi? In J. Ruusuvuori & L. Tiittula (eds.), Haastattelu. Tutkimus, tilanteet ja vuorovaikutus (p. 223–241.) Tampere: Vastapaino.
Ward, N. & Atterton, J. & Kim, T-Y. & Lowe, P. & Phillipson, J. & Thompson, N. (2005). Universities, the Knowledge Economy and “Neo-Endogenous Rural Development”. Centre for Rural Economy. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Discussion Paper. Series 1. November.
Weber, M (1921-22/1978): Economy and Society (two volumes, edited by: G. Roth and C. Wittich). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Westholm, E. & Moseley, M. & Stenlås, N. (eds.) (1999). Local Partnerships and Rural Development in Europe. Dalarnas Forskningsråd, Rapport 4, Falun.
Wilhelm, A. (2000.) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Wilkinson, S. (2003). Focus Groups. In Jonathan A Smith (ed.), Qualitative Psychology. A Practical Guide to Research Methods (p.184–204). London: Sage.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27 (2), 151-208.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Zuboff, S. & Maxmin, J. (2004). The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. London: Penguin.
Web-pages:
Aluekeskusohjelma (2009). Cited 20.12.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/hankkeet/aky/home.nsf/pages/indexfin.
Belting, J. (2008): Empirical Methods: Expert Interviews. Cited: 5.11.2008 Available on the internet: http://www.oat.ethz.ch/education/Autumn_term_08/Material_on_Empirical_Methods/Expert _Interview.pdf
243
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Etelä-Savo Saimaan maakunta (2009). Cited 13.10.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.esavo.fi/
Etelä-Savon maaseudun kehittämisohjelma 2007–2013 (2006). Työvoima ja elinkeinokeskus. Etelä-Savo. Cited 13.10.2009. Available on the internet: http://www2.te- keskus.fi/new/esa/Palvelut/Maaseutupalvelut/ohjelmaversio.pdf.
Healy, T. (2002). The measurement of social capital at international level. Cited: 20.07.2005. Available on the internet: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/2380281.pdf
Mikkelin seudun aluekeskusohjelma 2007–2010. Cited 20.12.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.mikkelinseutu.fi/fi/content/11_julkaisut/ako_esite_2007_webbiversio.pdf
Mikkelin seutu (2009). Cited 14.10.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.mikkelinseutu.fi/fi/content/01_index.
Osaamiskeskusohjelma (2009). Cited 20.12.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.oske.net/
Regional Council of South Savo (2006). Etelä-Savon maakuntaohjelma 2007–2013. Etelä- Savon maakuntaliiton julkaisu 80:2006. [Development programme of South Savo region 2007–2013] Cited 3.4.2008. Available on the internet: http://www.esavo.fi/media/maakuntaohjelma2007-2010_1.pdf
Ristiina (2009). Cited 14.10.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.ristiina.fi/fi/sisalto/01_index.
Savonlinnan seudun aluekeskusohjelma 2007–2010. (2009). Cited 20.12.2009. Available on the internet: http://195.255.122.162/Default.asp?NakymaID=1636.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008): Case study research design. Available on the internet: http://www.experiment-resources.com/case-study-research-design.html
Social partnership. Executive Council Statement to the 1998 Annual Delegate Meeting. Available on the internet: http://www.usdaw.org.uk/getactive/resource_library/files/RLFECSocial/ECStatementSocial.p df
The Village Action Association of Finland (2007). All the Power of a small village! National Village Action Programme 2003–2007 (Summary).. Cited 23.1.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.maaseutuplus.fi/files/download/Nationalvillageactionprogramme2003- 2007-Summary.pdf.
Veej’jakaja (2009). Cited 30.12.2009. Available on the internet: http://www.veejjakaja.fi/main.php?m=6&s=6
244
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
About Lithuania, Siauliai, Moletai district, Balninkai, Dargaiciai see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mol%C4%97tai_district_municipality http://neris.mii.lt/LT/MIESTAI/apskritis.php?Apskritis=Utenos http://neris.mii.lt/LT/MIESTAI/apskritis.php?Apskritis=%D0iauli%F8 http://www.balninkai.com/static.php?strid=1155& http://www.dargaiciai.lt/?kl=lt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania http://www.randburg.com/li/siauliaidi.html
About Nizhny Novgorod region, Semenov district see: http://www.government.nnov.ru/ http://www.raexpert.ru/database/regions/nizhny/ http://www.unn.runnet.ru/rus/volgovyt/nizhobl/ http://www.gu.nnov.ru/ogv/byreg/semenovs/ http://www.semenov.nnov.ru/
245
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Appendix: List of interviewees in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Finnish data
Table 1: Interviewed experts
1 Representative of LAG A Helsinki, 29.5.2007 2 Representative of LAG B Mikkeli, 6.6.2007 3 Project coordinator Mikkeli, 6.6.2007 4 Village action coordinator Mikkeli, 6.6.2007 5 Representative of LAG C Mikkeli, 7.6.2007 6 Representative of LAG D Mikkeli, 7.6.2007 7 Trade promoter Mikkeli, 7.6.2007 8 Representative of LAG C Mikkeli, 7.6.2007 9 Representative from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Helsinki, 8.6.2007 10 Representative of the Village Action Association of Finland Helsinki, 14.6.2007
Table 2: Individual interviews for the case study Case 1 11 C1A Representative of ESLI Mikkeli, 2007 and 2009 12 C1B Representative of ESLI Mikkeli, 2007 13 C1C Representative of the project’s guidance group Mikkeli, 2008 14 C1D Representative of Local Action Group Mikkeli, 2008 Veej’jakaja ry Case 2 15 C2A Representative of Ruralia Institute Mikkeli, 2007 16 C2B Representative of Ruralia Institute Mikkeli, 2008 17 C2C Representative of Ruralia Institute Mikkeli, 2008 18 C2D Representative of National Board of Helsinki, 2008 Antiquities 19 C2E Rock Art specialist Helsinki, 2007 20 C2F Local entrepreneur Ristiina, 2008 21 C2G Representative of the municipality of Ristiina Ristiina, 2008 22 C2H Local inhabitant Ristiina, 2008 23 C2I Representative of the Association of Finnish Mikkeli, 2008 Rock Art 24 C2J Representative of Ristiina’s municipal council Mikkeli, 2008
246
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 3: Participatory observation for the case study Rock Art seminar Ristiina, 14.8.2007 Meeting of the Village Sports Pilot Villages Anttolanhovi, Mikkeli, 2.2.2008 Village Sports event, Paltanen village Paltanen village, Pieksämäki, 3.2.2008 Meeting of the Village Sports guidance group, Mikkeli, 7.2.2008 Meeting of executive committee of the Association of Finnish Ristiina, 19.3.2008 Rock Art Rock Art seminar and visit to Astuvansalmi Ristiina, 20.9.2008 Meeting of the Village Sports guidance group Mikkeli, 30.3.2009
Table 4: Focus groups 1–4, Ristiina, 2009 Group 1 Person A Female Representative of local administration Person B Male Representative of local administration Person C Female Representative of local council Person D Male Representative of rural development organisation Group 2 Person E Male Local entrepreneur Person F Male Local entrepreneur Person G Female Local entrepreneur Person H Male Local entrepreneur Person I Female Local entrepreneur Group 3 Person J Female Local inhabitant Person K Male Local inhabitant Person L Male Local inhabitant Group 4 Person A Female Representative of local administration Person C Female Representative of local council Person K Male Local inhabitant Person M Female Local inhabitant Person N Male Representative of recreational residents
Russian data
Table 5: Expert interviews, July and September 2007
1 Director of NN advisory centre 2 Consultant of NN advisory centre 3 Consultant of rural advisory centre 4 Director of rural advisory centre 5 Director of the shelter 6 The adviser of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Resources of the Nizhniy Novgorod region
247
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Table 6: List of interview, Nizhny Novgorod, Semenov district, autumn 2007 7 Head of the Partners’ Council 8 Former head of the Partners’ Council 9 Head of the Department of Social Policy of Families and Children under the Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment, NNovgorod 10 Representative of the Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment, Semenov 11 Deputy director of the State organization, Employment Agency of the Semenov district 12 Chairman of a legislative body of a municipal district 13 Head of village administration 14 Excursion around shelter with its director 15 Social workers of the shelter 16 A family, which has helped the Shelter 17 Urban sponsor, NN 18 Sponsor, private entrepreneur (selling car spare parts) 19 Sponsor, deputy director of OOO 20 Local resident, the Sheep Project, positive experience 21 Local resident, the Sheep Project, negative experience 22 Local resident, the Sheep Project, beginning of a project 23 Consultants of the rural advisory centre 24 Director of the Credit Cooperative Spring 2008
25 Director of the Credit Cooperative 26 Department of Informatisation of the municipal district administration 27 Deputy head of the Department of Economy of the municipal district 28 Director of the Shelter 29 Employee of the Shelter October 2008
30 Director of the Credit Cooperative 15.10.2008 31 Member of the Credit Cooperative, the Sheep Project 16.10.2008 32 Member of the Credit Cooperative, private entrepreneur 16.10.2008 33 Member of the Credit Cooperative, farmer 16.10.2008 34 Member of the Credit Cooperative, the Sheep Project 16.10.2008 35 Member of the Credit Cooperative, the Sheep Project, living within a 17.10.2008 short distance from the Shelter, helping the Shelter 36 Member of the Credit Cooperative, the Sheep Project 15.10.2008 37 Dirictor of the Rural Advisory Centre 15.10.2008 38 Chairman of a representative body of the municipal district 15.10.2008 39 Head of village administration 1 17.10.2008 40 Head of village administration 2 14.10.2008 41 Starosta (village elder) of the village 14.10.2008 42 Director of the Shelter 17.10.2008
248
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
December 2008 – January 2009
43 Representative of Rosselkhozbank, NN 23.12.2008 44 Representative of the Ministry of Agriculture (head of the 16.01.2009 Department of Crop Production) 45 Representative of the Ministry of Agriculture (head of the 16.01.2009 Department of Marketing) 46 Representative of the Department of Agriculture of the municipal 19.01.2009 district 47 Local resident 19.01.2009 48 Head of village administration 3 19.01.2009
Table 7: Focus groups May-June 2009 in Semenov
Group 1 Person A Male Employment agency (representative of State authority in the district) Person B Female Department of Social Protection, Labour and Employment (representative of State authority in the district) Person C Female Rural Advisory Centre Person D Female Rural Advisory Centre Person E Male Local government , municipal district level Person F Male Local government , municipal district level Group 2 Person G Male Local entrepreneur Person H Male Head of the Credit Cooperative Person I Female Local entrepreneur Person J Male Farmer Group 3 Person K Female Local inhabitant Person L Female Local inhabitant Person M Male Local inhabitant Person N Female Local inhabitant Person O Female Local inhabitant Group 4 Person C Female Rural Advisory Centre Person H Male Head of the Credit Cooperative Person K Female Local inhabitant Person L Male Local inhabitant Person P Male Department of Agriculture Person R Male Head of rural municipality Person S Male Local government, municipal district level Person T Female Head of rural municipality
Lithuanian data
Table 8: Expert interviews
1 A head of the Institute of Social Innovations October 2007, Vilnius 2 Expert from Rural Development Department, October .2007, Vilnius Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics
249
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
3 A parliament member, a member of political party October .2007, Vilnius 4 A head of the Centre of Social Services in Kaunas October 2007, Kaunas region District 5 President of Rural Internet Access Points Association and a head-manager of project November 2007, Vilnius Development of Public Internet Access Points
Table 9: Individual interviews An owner of eco-farm (initiator of social 6 Spring 2008 innovation) Pernarava A manager of eco-farm (owner’s wife) 7 Spring 2008 Pernarava An owner of the second eco-farm (cooperation, 8 Spring 2008 social partnership) Pernarava Dargaiciai, February 2008 and 9 A leader of the community centre November 2008 10 Rural resident, living in Dargaiciai village Dargaiciai, February 2008
11 A family, Dargaiciai dwellers Dargaiciai, February 2008 12 Representative from the Dargaiciai local Gruzdziai, August 2009 government 13 A leader of Balninkai community centre Balninkai, November 2008
14 A former leader of Balninkai community centre Balninkai, November 2008
15 Rural residents, living in Balninkai: 3 persons Balninkai, November 2008
Additional Interviews - 2nd stage of case studies,
16 A leader of Eiciunai community centre and his wife and children December 2008 17 Librarian at Eiciunai library December 2008 18 Rural residents, living in Eiciunai village December 2008 19 Representative from Gruzdziai eldership (Dargaiciai case) August 2009
Table 10: Focus groups May-June 2009 Group 1 Person A Female Representative of local administration, specialist Person B Female Head of local administration Person C Female Leader of community centre Group 2 Person D Female Owner of rural tourism place Person E Male Owner of rural tourism place Person F Female Artist, local entrepreneur
250
Social innovations and social partnerships in Finland, Russia and Lithuania
Group 3 Person F Female Local inhabitant, artist Person G Female Local inhabitant, pensioner Person H Female Local inhabitant, pensioner Person I Female Local inhabitant, pensioner, former teacher Person J Female Local inhabitant, member of community centre Person K Male Local inhabitant, pensioner Person L Female Local inhabitant, social worker Person M Female Local inhabitant, non-employed Person C Female Local inhabitant, leader of community centre Group 4 Person A Female Representative of local administration, specialist Person B Female Head of local administration Person C Female Leader of community centre Person F Female Artist, local entrepreneur Person N Female Local inhabitant Person O Female Local inhabitant, works at Museum of Glass
251