© 2019 Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies
Vol. 11, March 2019, pp. 99-120 (ONLINE)
Master’s and Doctoral Programs in International and Advanced
Japanese Studies
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Tsukuba

Research Note

A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects
in Local Governance in Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan

Bakhrom RADJABOV
University of Tsukuba, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ph.D. Student
The publication researches and evaluates 68 projects labeled as ‘social innovations’ in/for local governments
and communities, that have been undertaken by Kolba Lab (Armenia), Social Boost and other organizations(Ukraine) and UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project (Uzbekistan) with
development assistance from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It contributes to knowledge on
the concept of social innovation through the yet missing critical analysis of social innovations in local
governments and communities of post-Soviet republics. Theoretical and empirical analysis is achieved byapplying ‘connected difference’ approach, social innovation cycle, and social practice theory to theoreticallyformulate, and empirically apply the concept of social innovation. To contribute to scientific research on social
innovations, this study critically evaluates projects in local governments and communities, as perspective social
innovations on micro (local) level, namely combination of new social practices.
Key words: Social Innovations, Armenia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Local Governance, Local Communities

Introduction
There is a significant amount of literature on social innovations where one can find demonstratively opposite
definitions of this concept or even a strong belief that social innovation is an empty concept. Attempts toconceptualize social innovations are challenged by the lack of clarity and overwhelming number of various
definitions of the concept. For instance, based on four dimensions proposed by Eduardo Pol and Simone Ville one
defines ‘social innovation’ based on the following correlation: (1) social innovation and institutional change, (2)social innovation and social purpose, (3) social innovation and ‘public good’, (4) social innovation and needs notconsidered by the market. Furthermore, definitions of ‘social innovation’ can be drawn from Murray et al. whoprovides the following definition of social innovations:“…innovations that are social both in their ends and in their means. Specifically, one defines social
innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs andcreate new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, they are innovations that are both
good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act”.1

1

Murray et al. The open book of Social Innovation. London, United Kingdom: The Young Foundation, 2010, p. 5.

99

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Leadbeater complements Murray’s definition of social innovation and describes ‘social innovation’ evenbroader, using institutional and personalized dimensions. He writes: “Social innovation – like many other forms ofinnovation – is a process of collective innovation involving many players: social enterprises, companies, service
users, regulators, funders, politicians”.2
In fact, there is a significant number of attempts to theoretically and empirically define social innovation.
One of them is to distinguish social innovations from business or technological innovations, or to compare it (social
innovation) to institutional change in the society. From a developmental perspective, social innovation is approachedthrough its ability to produce social impact. But social impact is not the single element of social innovation
envisioned by development organizations. Since, in this article, the researcher discusses projects supported byUnited Nations Development Program (UNDP) through different organizations, it primarily refers to UNDP’s
definition of social innovation discussed below.
For the sake of the clarity and complementarity of definitions relevant to the research purpose of this study
UNDP’s definition of social innovations is going to be primarily discussed. According to UNDP Social Innovation
for Public Service Excellence Report:“Social innovation refers to new ideas that work in meeting social goals. A social innovation approach puts
capacity to harness innovation at the core of public service (…). A feature of social innovation is that it combines
multiple disciplines, types of actors and sectors. Social innovation is also more than just invention; it describes a
process from initial prompt through to scale and systemic change”.3
In the theoretical part of the study this definition will be used as the point of departure in extensive discussionof criteria of social innovations. Scrutinizing projects supported by the UNDP and relevant organizations in Armenia,
Ukraine and Uzbekistan provides empirical findings of theoretical approach to social innovation.
The study compiles and critically analyzes up to 68 projects supported by the UNDP through Social
Innovation Kolba Lab in Armenia, SocialBoost and other organizations in Ukraine, and UNDP/UNV ‘Social
Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project. A separate part of this article is dedicated to the description ofabove mentioned organizations. These case study countries and organizations were selected for further analysis after
careful examination of social innovation related initiatives in post-Soviet republics. Only in Armenia, Ukraine andUzbekistan, by the time of the current research, are there UNDP supported projects which were aimed to be social
innovations in local governments and communities.
1. Theoretical contribution/Significance of the research
Scholars and practitioners have been using the term ‘social innovation’ extensively for the last two decades.
Though different theories (e.g. structuration theory, structural function theory, actor-network theory, development
theories, etc.) discuss the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of social innovation as an independent
theoretical and practical unit, they remain silent about clear-cut criteria of social innovation. Furthermore, a variety
of uses and interpretations of social innovation makes this concept loosely used by scholars, politicians, internationaland governmental organizations, etc. In this regard these problems in the theory and empirics of social innovations
are being addressed by the research project. To tackle them the research critically evaluates projects supported andlabeled by UNDP as ‘social innovations’ against criteria of ‘connected difference’ approach, social innovation cycle,
and social practice theory.
Selection of the case studies: Kolba Lab in Armenia, Social Boost (other organizations) in Ukraine andUNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project are organizations/projects selected for the
analysis of social innovations in/for local governments and communities. These organizations/projects are the best
choice to fit in the study, and correspond with the goals of the current research. Besides being the only
projects/organizations in Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, as well as on the post-Soviet Eurasia space, dealing
with social innovations. They possess a multispectral approach in the introduction of ‘social innovations’. Thisapproach allowed specific selection of projects labeled as ‘social innovations’ in local governments andLeadbeater, Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years. London: Office of Third Sector, 2007, p. 14.
Tucker, Social Innovation for Public Service Excellence. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence. Singapore: United
Nations Development Programme, 2014, p. 4.
2
3

100

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

communities. The study does not expect that projects labeled as ‘social innovations’ would reach a systemic change
stage that would promote debate about newly introduced and widely accepted new practices. However, the study isgoing to consider projects moving towards this stage after completion of the previous stages.
Gap in the literature and Contribution to theory: While many studies have been conducted on the theory andpractice of ‘social innovations’ in different countries, hardly any scholarly research has thus far been done on theexperience with ‘social innovations’ in post-communist countries. It is argued that in the UNDP’s approach, ‘social
innovation’ is seen as something that can be volitional and developmental. Most scholars analyze ‘social innovations’post factum. UNDP views ‘social innovation’ as something that can be aspired and worked towards. Based on
conducted research and critical analysis, the study checks the projects against the criteria of ‘connected difference’approach, social innovation cycle, and social practice theory to provide scholarly assessment of local projects
advancing towards being local social innovations. By this, the study will generate, yet still missing, scholarly
analysis (and literature) on the social innovations in post-Soviet republics.
(1) Research Questions
The purpose of the study is to critically analyze whether projects supported by the UNDP and Kolba Lab(Armenia), SocialBoost (and other projects) (Ukraine) and UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in
Uzbekistan’ Project (Uzbekistan) in/for local governments and communities can become social innovations.
Therefore, the study formulates research questions designed to critically approach the projects:
1. What have been the gains and shortcomings of these UNDP-supported projects in terms of ‘social
innovation’?
2. How have projects maintained by Kolba Lab (Armenia), SocialBoost (and other projects) (Ukraine)and the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project (Uzbekistan) andsupported by UNDP advanced towards bringing social innovations in local governments andcommunities?
(2) Argument
Social innovation is a multidimensional concept that is inversely used in various contexts. UNDP in Armenia,
Ukraine and Uzbekistan has introduced projects labeled as ‘social innovations’ to address issues in local
governments and communities. ‘Social innovation’ projects in Uzbekistan have failed to become true social
innovations as the projects suffered from weak civic activism, accountability, ICT infrastructural problems, and thelack of the true commitment from policymakers. While projects in Armenia and Ukraine have likewise experienced
intermittent support from the government, they have benefited from active local community participation, a stronger
ICT component, and easy access to open data.
While they have a long way to go before achieving institutionalization, some of the Armenia and Ukraine
projects show hopeful signs of developing into real ‘social innovation.’ These projects can potentially advancetowards being new social practices in social contexts and, subsequently, social innovations on micro (local) level.
2. Theoretical foundations of the research
Theoretical debate concerning social innovations is ongoing since the concept is still undertheorized but isbeginning to catch up to the practice. Scholarly debate is happening as Domanski points out: “around definition ofit (social innovation) either through social relations, or ‘social’ in terms of societal impact”.4 One could have a quite
different perspective on social innovations if asked a question whether any innovation has a societal impact orcompels social relationships that, by default, makes any innovation ‘social innovation’.
Subsequently, numerous social science theories have contributed to the theoretical discourse on social
innovation. Practically speaking, the scope of discussion covers development theories, theories of entrepreneurship,
theories of sociology etc. that try to conceptualize social innovation and provide definition of this term. In thisarticle, given the task of the current research, the researcher applies a ‘connected difference’ approach and social
practice theory to evaluate UNDP supported projects in local governments and communities. The rationale to opt
for this combination of theoretical approaches is explained below.
Domanski., Exploring the Research Landscape of Social Innovation. Dortmund, Germany: A deliverable of the project Social
Innovation Community (SIC), 2017, p. 20.
4101

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019(1) ‘Connected difference’ approach and social innovations
Social innovation is often regarded as a separate unit of analysis sometimes overlapping with business and/or
technological innovations. Numerous recent studies (Evers 2012, Bhatt 2013, Barraket 2015, Howaldt 2015,
Ionescu 2015, Oosterlynck 2015, Domanski 2017, Howaldt et al. 2018) emphasize the growing role of social
innovations for development. Based on theoretical methodology, development, sociological, entrepreneurial
approaches the researcher tried to analyze social innovations. To set scholarly criteria for the analysis of social
innovations, critical analysis of those theories has led to the selection of ‘connected difference’ approach and social
practice theory for the further analysis. Those theories have been applied for the first time to analyze projects on
micro (local) level in post-Soviet republics, labeled as ‘social innovations’.
Mulgan et al. (2007) in his study points out that:“Social innovation plays a decisive role in development. Past advances in healthcare and the
spread of new technologies like the car, electricity or the internet, depended as much on social
innovation as they did on innovation in technology or business. Today there are signs that social
innovation is becoming even more important for development. This is partly because some of thebarriers to lasting growth (such as climate change, or ageing populations) can only be overcome withthe help of social innovation, and partly because of rising demands for types of economic growth thatenhance rather than damage human relationships and well-being”.5
Clearly, development agencies and donors are also introducing innovations in design of the newdevelopment programs in various countries and sectors where change is required. For instance, United Nations
Development Program Global Center for Public Service Excellence (UNDP GCPSE) is concerned about PublicService Innovations and the introduction of social innovations in the public sector.
It should be noted that UNDP in its work uses methodology developed by the organizations with expertisein social innovation, such as NESTA Global Innovation Foundation or/and Young Foundations. UNDP uses Mulgan
et al. ‘connected difference’ approach with emphasis on three key dimensions of social innovation:
1. They are usually new combinations or hybrids of existing elements, rather than being wholly new in themselves;
2. Putting them into practice involves cutting across organizational, sectoral or disciplinary boundaries;
3. They leave behind new relationships between previously separate individuals and groups. These new
relationships which matter greatly to the people involved contribute to the diffusion and embedding of theinnovation. Also, they fuel a cumulative dynamic whereby each innovation opens up the possibility of further
innovations.
This approach highlights the critical role of ‘connectors’ in any innovation system – the brokers,
entrepreneurs and institutions that link together people, ideas, money and power – who contribute as much to lastingchange as thinkers, creators, designers, activists and community groups. 6 The ‘connected difference’ approachfunctions in the frame of practice-led methodology that explains generation of social innovation. The essence of theapproach is in connecting different elements, individuals, organizations and groups not otherwise connected. By
doing so, it creates new social relationships which matter in enabling social innovation. In addition, the generationof social innovation is also addressed by Murray and Mulgan’s ‘stages of social innovation’, also known as social
innovation cycle (see Figure. 1). According to the social innovation cycle the ultimate goal of any social innovation
is systemic change that includes many elements and happens over long period of time.7

5

Mulgan et al. Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated? The Young Foundation. Oxford:
Basingstoke Press, 2007, p. 5.
6
Mulgan et al. Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated? The Young Foundation. Oxford:
Basingstoke Press, 2007, p. 5.
7
ibid

102

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

Figure 1. Social Innovation Cycle

Source: Murray & Mulgan, 2010: 11
Guide for social innovation (2013) describes this process as follows:
They [social innovations] start as ideas, which may then be piloted or prototyped. If successful
there is a process of sustaining the new model in the implementation stage – perhaps as a new
venture or as a new policy within an existing institution. The final stage is to scale up so that the
new approach makes a real impact and becomes part of the norm.8
Yet the combination of the ‘connected difference’ approach and Mulgan’s explanation of the process of thecreation of social innovations alone are not sufficient for understanding and explaining how projects supported by
UNDP advance towards being social innovations in local governments and communities. Although the ways bywhich a new idea becomes an everyday practice, sustainability (meaning availability of budget), legislation etc. isaddressed by Mulgan, he does not touch upon the mechanism that “transforms innovations into social structuresand practice” - imitation/repetition.9 Moreover, nothing is said about interruptions that lead to social innovation as
new social practices, once they are transferred and imitated from person to person.10 In other words, theoretical
instruments explaining creation of social innovations on the local level is missing and should be supplemented.
Social practice theory is very helpful in tackling this gap.
(2) Social practice theory and social innovation
Social practice theory emphasizes that social innovation is not just an invention but “a new combination
and/or configuration of social practices prompted by certain actors or the constellation of actors in an intentionaltargeted manner with the goal of better satisfying, or answering needs and problems, than is possible on the basisof established practices”.11 For social practice theory invention is a central element for social development 12 but
imitation/repetition is the central mechanism of social reproduction and social change (see Figure 2).13
The process of social innovation, according to social practice theory, goes through the stages of
implementation through planned, or unplanned, intervention, prototyping/piloting of a new idea in an existing social
context. Institutionalization follows the implementation stage to assure that a new social practice becomes aneveryday routine. The diffusion stage advances imitation to the level of new social practice that potentially changes
existing social structure enabling social change. These key stages of generation of social innovation are helpful inunderstanding how a new social practice is able to make social change and create a new social reality. To embody
anticipated social innovation, the following key elements of social practice described in Table 1 should be present:

8

European Commission, Guide to Social Innovation. Brussels: European Commission, 2013, p. 9.
Tarde cit. in Howaldt, Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation - A critical Literature Review. Dortmund, Germany: A
deliverable of the project: ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE), 2014, p. 19.
10
ibid
11
ibid, p.16.
12ibid, p. 19.
13
ibid
9

103

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Physicality

Table 1. Key elements of Social PracticeMateriality

Sociality and physicality carried out
practicesThings, technologies in and forsocial practiceVolume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Competencies
Know-how, practical knowledge,
background knowledge,
understanding

Source: Howaldt et al. 2014: 13
According to Tarde, “Novelty can go out of each of these elements. New practices thus arise from the
combination of new and existing elements”. 14 As mentioned above, social change may occur through themechanism by translating invention through imitation into a reproduced new social fact able to change the existing
structure.
Figure 2. Mechanism of Social Reproduction and Social Change
Invention

Imitation/repetition

Social Reproduction/Social
ChangeSource: Howaldt et al. 2014: 19
Tarde’s theoretical contribution might be used to study social innovation as a mechanism of social changeon the micro and meso levels. Thus, social practice theory has been applied for analytical purposes of the study toscrutinize projects aimed to be social innovations on the micro (local) level. Mulgan’s ‘connected difference’approach to social innovation, has been primarily applied to analyze projects labeled by UNDP as ‘social
innovations’ as the point of departure of theoretical analysis in this study. Since UNDP used this approach fornurturing social innovations in local governments and communities, the primary task of the research was to evaluate
the projects supported by UNDP against criteria applied by this development organization. Additionally, social
practice theory addressed the projects supported by UNDP and checked them against its criteria and stages of ageneration of social innovation. The application of two approaches allowed using an analytical mechanism of double
control and check of projects against their potential social innovation characteristics throughout the social
innovation generation process.
(3) Methodological guidelines
The study applied qualitative methods of data collection, including analysis of documents, projects related
documents, and other available sources of information. On the level of primary data collection, the research uses
in-depth interviews for the collection of qualitative data. Interviews have been carried out in person and via
skype/messengers during 2017-2018, with 23 respondents from Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan who supported
and/or introduced projects in local governments and communities labeled as ‘social innovations’. With thepermission of respondents, interviews were recorded. Permission to directly quote respondents in the research has
been obtained. The data gained from the interviews was combined with the data consisting of project documents
available for analysis from 68 projects. The following categories of respondents have been covered:
1. UNDP staff members in charge of ‘social innovation’ projects,
2. Individuals/team members of Kolba Lab, Social Boost (and other organizations), and UNDP/UNV ‘Social
Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project in charge of ‘social innovations’ in local governments andcommunities,
3. Local civil society leaders, members of interest groups, activists and advocates implemented ‘social innovation’projects in local governments and communities.
While conducting Skype/Messenger interviews with respondents in Armenia and Ukraine, limitations
related to the usage of English or Russian languages have occurred. Respondents without good command of either
English or Russian have not been interviewed. The researcher does not possess adequate knowledge of Armenian
14

ibid, p. 14.

104

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

and Ukrainian languages to collect primary data from interviews, or secondary information from other sources.
Respondents from UNDP and Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (and other organizations) and UNDP/UNV ‘Social
Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ organizations/projects have been chosen based on: a) engagement in‘social innovation’ activities in/for local governments and communities in Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
confirmed by official programs and/or project documents; b) confirmed and documented cooperation with UNDP
in the creation and delivery of ‘social innovation’ solutions in local governments and communities.
Local civil society leaders, members of local interest groups, activists and advocates have been chosen basedon: a) leadership in ‘social innovation’ initiatives and ‘social innovation’ projects; b) Implementation by them of‘social innovation’ solutions in local governments and communities.
To obtain primary data through interviews a networking strategy has been applied to contact respondents, who
introduced ‘social innovations’.
Questions of the interviews have been related to the background information and the argument derived fromtheories. The questionnaire for the interview has been prepared in Russian and English.
(4) Evaluation criteria of social innovation applied in the study
The criteria and the basis for interpretation of the results of the study have been drawn from the theoreticalframework, encompassing a ‘connected difference’ approach, to the social innovation cycle and social practicetheory. The 68 projects in Armenia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan mentioned earlier have been evaluated based on criteria
formulated and explained below.
The criteria applied in the analysis encompasses the following explanation:(1) Project ideas should be new to the social contexts of local governments and communities in Armenia, Ukraineand Uzbekistan;(2) Social impact is a change occurring in local governances or communities, as the result of intervention of the
project;(3) The criterion of interaction of different actors/sectors/disciplines involved in idea generation and implementation
implies that the projects should be cross-cutting several sectors (market-state-civil society), involve different actors
interacting in the network, and across disciplines;(4) The involvement of technology criterion considers technology, basic or advanced electronic, engineer or ICT
tools introduced by the project;(5) The process of generation of social innovation being a final criterion in the study should track whether the project
followed the accepted order from prompting to ideation/proposition, prototyping, sustaining, scaling, and finally, tosystemic change. Social innovation cycle has been applied for this purpose.
Projects have been additionally evaluated against key elements of social practice such as physicality,
materiality and competences, as well as being checked against social practice generation stages of social practicetheory chosen as one of the theories framing the study. The stages of the social innovation cycle and social practicetheory are explained in Tables 2 and 3 below. A social innovation cycle starts with the diagnosis of the problem andidentification of the need to innovate. This stage is dedicated to prompts, inspirations and diagnoses. The next stage
is dedicated to proposals and ideas, ideas generation.
Social practice theory marks this stage as invention. In the table below, the example of social innovation
cycle and social practice theory. Those primary stages have been eliminated because the projects supported by
UNDP have advanced to prototyping or implementation stage. Some of them, however, have not moved forward
and remain at those stages. Thus, being a critical point for analysis, evaluation of the projects starts from theprototyping/implementation stages of generation of social innovations.

105

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

StagesExplanation

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Table 2. Social Innovation Cycle
Prototyping
Sustaining
Scaling
Testing ideas in
Idea becomes everyday
Growing andpracticepractice
spreadinginnovation

Systemic change
New frameworks
and/or architectures
made up of
innovations

Source: Murray & Mulgan, 2010: 12

StagesExplanation

Implementation
Introduction ofidea into context
of useTable 3. Social Practice Theory
Institutionalization
Diffusion
Idea becomes a regular
Fast and sustained
practice or made routine
spread ofinnovation

Social change
Change in the social
structure of asociety, its
underlying
institutions, cultural
patterns,

Source: Howaldt et al. 2014: 19
The philosophy of UNDP supporting social innovations was to change its approach to development work.
By introducing social innovations UNDP withdraws itself from complex political economy analysis and needs
assessment, and regards individuals facing certain development problems as experts able to find solutions of these
problems. Thus, individuals (not UNDP) should identify the challenges which required efforts for change. Thisapproach is called a human-centered approach. Hence, any initiative or project introduced and led by individuals
experiencing those challenges, and not initiated by UNDP or any organization, are considered in this research as apotential ‘social innovation’.
3. Evaluation of solutions supported by UNDP in Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan against their social
innovation characteristics
Armenia is the first country in the World where United Nations has based a Social Innovation Laboratory. –Kolba Lab in 2013, was funded by the European Union to design and implement ‘social innovations’ fordevelopment. 15 While the idea behind Kolba Lab was to embrace new technologies and methodologies indevelopment work, it incubated social startups and selected ideas through local government Challenge, mylocgov,
to tackle problems in local governments and communities. Kolba Lab has had two approaches to the generation of‘social innovations’ in Armenia: 1) Innovation Challenges - Ideas competing for social startups in local communities,
and 2) Local government Challenges for ‘social innovations’ in local governments.
In Ukraine UNDP supported ‘social innovation’ projects through National Hackathons and Municipal
Innovation Labs. Differently from Armenia and Uzbekistan, ‘social innovation’ projects in Ukraine were supported
by diverse organizations. Many of these organizations engaged with UNDP as a partner and as a donor. A lot ofemphasis was made on open data and technology involved in innovation. The major organization supported ‘social
innovation’ projects with UNDP was SocialBoost 16 which did a massive amount of socially significant projects
involving ICT solutions in partnership with international donors, global corporations and partners. In addition toSocialBoost, E-Governance for Accountability and Participation (EGAP) Program, Transparency andAccountability in Public Administration Services (TAPAS), Eidos Centre for Political Studies and Analysis, as wellas other programs have also nurtured local and national projects. Some of these organizations, for instance EGAP,
explicitly promoted social innovations, intending to promote higher quality governance, and cooperation between
citizens and governments. Others, like TAPAS and Eidos, promoted cooperation between governments and citizens,and governments’ accountability based on open data.
In Uzbekistan, The UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project led by UNDP
was the first and, as yet, only social innovation initiative. The Project was directly implemented by UNDP Good
15
16

What is Kolba Lab? Retrieved February 13, 2017, from Kolba Lab: http://kolba.am/en/FAQ
SocialBoost. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from SocialBoost: http://socialboost.com.ua/

106

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

Governance Unit, allowing cooperation with national partner organizations based on Memorandums ofUnderstanding. 17 Two national organizations in Uzbekistan worked with UNDP/UNV. ‘Social Innovation andVolunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project in Uzbekistan, the National Library of Uzbekistan named after Alisher Navoi,
and the Centre for Youth Initiatives “Kelajak Ovozi” were selected. The choice of these organizations as the partnersof the Project has been made based on several factors.
The first reason was the Project objectives related to involvement of young people into social innovationand volunteerism activities – two overlapping areas in understanding of UNDP in Uzbekistan. Since the major shareof the population of Uzbekistan is young people under thirty, UNDP saw the biggest potential for innovation fromextensive involvement of youth in social innovation projects. Moreover, volunteerism was another area that might
be of interest for young individuals. The second reason UNDP was chosen is that organization was seeking ways
for the institutionalization of its social innovation and volunteerism related initiatives. Since, the Project was directly
implemented by UNDP, commitments from local organizations to maintain performance of the initiatives after thecompletion of the Project was crucial. Hence, the National Library of Uzbekistan and the Center for Youth Initiatives
agreed to cooperate with the Project and commit their resources and institutional capabilities. Additionally, theProject collaborated with private companies in Uzbekistan to institutionalize its ‘social innovation’ initiatives. Twocompanies, namely, the biggest retail chain Korzinka.uz and the taxi company ‘Perekrestok’ have been contacted
for cooperation. Further in the analysis we refer to these and other initiatives inspired by UNDP as UNDP-led ideas.
(1) Generation of ‘social innovations’: how it worked
All three-country projects/organizations followed the process of creation of ‘social innovation’ projects inlocal government and communities:
Proposition. Identify and set priority development challenges. After identifying development problems,
propose the list of problems which call for innovative solutions from individuals. Individuals/users then come up
with their shortlist of priorities.
Prioritization. Do preparatory work on identifying and setting development challenges. It, allows users
experiencing certain problems to agree or disagree with proposed challenges. Users can actually disagree with all
propositions and prioritize different development challenges which they intend to tackle. End-users challenges arealways chosen to announce an open call for ideas and projects able to solve these challenges. At this stage UNDP
supported organizations assist potential trouble-solvers in learning, pitching, and idea/project presentation
techniques. Those skills are required for presenting/pitching their ideas/projects in front of an experienced selection
board of experts from different sectors. For this purpose, Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (and other organizations) andUNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project organize Hackathons, Municipal
Innovations Lab, Social Innovation Camps, Trainings, etc. At these events ideas are usually being revised andselected for the next stage – incubation.
Incubation. Selected ideas are taken to the incubation process supported by Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (andother organizations) and UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project. Ideas receive
mentorship support, and assistance in connecting them to the existing eco-system in Armenia, Ukraine andUzbekistan. Moreover, Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (and other organizations), and UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation andVolunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project provide seed funding to the best ideas and help in turning ideas into minimum
viable products (MVPs) or workable business models. Incubation stage is/was usually followed by the Demo Day
or Implementation stage.
Implementation. Once the ideas/projects are incubated Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (and other organizations)and UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project as well as authors of the ideas/projects
work on implementation of these ideas/projects together with local partner organizations and government authorities.
In the case of local governments and communities, Kolba Lab, SocialBoost (and other organizations) andUNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project were able to support ideas coming from17

UNDP/UNV Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan Project. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from Social Innovation andVolunteerism in Uzbekistan Project Goal:
http://www.uz.undp.org/content/uzbekistan/en/home/operations/projects1/democratic_governance/social-innovation-andvolunteerism-in-uzbekistan.html

107

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019individuals within the organizations. Those individuals were aware of the problems, and possessed sufficientknowledge to offer solutions to the existing problems. Moreover, projects would not succeed without social capitalintegrated into them as a substantial element. The role of those social relationships (or social capital of individuals)
has not been researched. Their input was not comprehensively assessed nor explained, to better understand howsocial innovations can be created. Also, in the case of governance institutions in Armenia, public sector employees
actually understood the problem of, say, violation of consumers’ rights, better than end-users, and/or citizens in local
communities. For instance, an accessibility map was created by users, for consumers’ rights protections. The
application was proposed by mid-level government employee to inform citizens about their rights and allow themto report violations which they experienced. Policy level innovation and free legal tools for analyzing court decisions
and cases allowed analysis of statistics and visualization tools that permitted citizens to stay informed about court
decision. To make these projects work, two components were required: 1) involvement and commitment of
individuals in governments and communities; 2) ICT tools and access to open data.
Obviously, though all projects pass through very careful selection process, not all of the proposed solutions
turn out to be sustainable. This research covers and analyzes all projects and discusses them in accordance withtheoretical framework. Besides explaining why certain projects fail to be social innovations in the future, it
determines those potentially able to be social innovations in local governments and communities.
(2) Towards being a “social innovation”
Armenia. Due to the Kolba Lab assistance every project has been connected to organizations and partners
from different sectors. Projects in/for local governments have been designed in a way to involve ICT sector
representatives, public and private organizations. 13 out of 14 projects involved technology usually in form of IT
tools (apps, websites etc.). All 14 projects were designed in accordance with criteria applied by UNDP. Since criteriathat UNDP applied on the projects were met, all projects also went through the stages of creation of social
innovations both by social innovation cycle and social practice theory. Tables 4 and 5 covered all projects anddemonstrate how each of them advanced towards being social innovation. Key elements of social practice such as
physicality, materiality and competences were addressed by the projects in local communities and governments.
They consisted of aspects required for new social practices, technology and knowledge of the project team. Also,
Kolba Lab invested in building missing capacity of the projects’ members and assisted in making necessaryconnections between the projects and interested organizations.

108

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

Table 4. Social Innovation Cycle (Projects in Armenia)
Projects
Prompts
PropoProtoSustainScaling
sals
types
ing
Quality of Life Calculator✓✓✓

Systemic
ChangeHosanq. Info & Armenian✓✓✓
meteo projectTaghinfo✓✓✓
ARVest art education✓✓✓
board game
Consumers’ rights
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
protection Chat bot
Free legal tool for✓✓✓
analyzing court decisionand cases
Smart City solution✓✓✓✓(condominium
management system)
Garbage Management✓✓✓
optimization tool
Online School
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
registration
Monitoring spending of
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
government officials forbusiness trips
Monitoring relocation of
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
government vehicles
Interactive city budget (in
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
6 cities)
Blood control application
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Seeing hands
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources
related to the projects.

It is important to mention that Kolba Lab and UNDP were primarily considering two aspects in any project
to be qualified as ‘social innovation’: 1) social impact and 2) human-centered principal. In this regards, Marina
Mkhitaryan says:“Impact is the key word. Kolba Lab sees what is the impact and what is the likelihood of impact for
those ideas, and how effective they are in terms of what has been spent in terms of resources, time,
human resources on implementing this idea. If the ratio is optimal then this is a social innovation. If it
is responding to the human-centered principal, this is social innovation”.18
Also, Kolba Lab and UNDP have not tried to replicate and scale up all solutions offered by the projects.
Provoking innovative thinking inside the system and/or organization, that could be used after the completion of the
project has been regarded as the very good accomplishment. Mkhitaryan argues:“Not all solutions, according to the philosophy of Kolba Lab, have to be replicated, accelerated
or expanded, but they can provoke innovative thinking inside the existing system, which can be also agreat achievement”.19

18
19

Mkhitaryan, UNDP Armenia, Kolba Innovations Lab lead. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer, 2017, December 22).
Mkhitaryan, UNDP Armenia, Kolba Innovations Lab lead. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer, 2017, December 22).

109

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

In other words, UNDP and Kolba Lab in Armenia were predominantly concerned about the social impact
from the projects designed by the individuals experiencing the problem, and less about the replication of the solutionthat helped to solve the problem. This, in accordance with the approach of Kolba Lab, was sufficient for the project
to progress towards being a ‘social innovation’.
Table 5. Social Practice Theory (Projects in Armenia)
Invention/
ImplementDiffuInstitutionSocial
imitation
ation
sion
alizationchangeQuality of Life Calculator✓✓
Hosanq. Info & Armenian✓✓
meteo projectTaghinfo✓✓
ARVest art education board✓✓
game
Consumers’ rights protection✓✓✓✓
Chat bot
Free legal tool for analyzing✓✓
court decision and cases
Smart City solution✓✓✓(condominium management
system)Garbage Management✓✓
optimization tool
Online School registration✓✓✓✓
Monitoring spending of✓✓✓✓government officials forbusiness trips
Monitoring relocation of✓✓✓✓
government vehicles
Interactive city budget (in 6✓✓✓✓cities)Blood control application✓✓✓✓
Seeing hands✓✓✓✓
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources
related to the projects
Projects

A human-centered approach was applied to every project. Though not all projects could become social
innovations, as any innovation possesses failures as a part of the process, Kolba Lab could establish a systemic
innovations generation mechanism that could advance the number of projects to the stage of social/systemic change
in the existing social structure. Thus, by the introduction of new social practices on the local level, projects supported
by Kolba Lab and UNDP might advance towards being social innovations. Projects have been evaluated against thestages of generation of social innovations in accordance with the social innovation cycle and social practice theory.
Both approaches showed that out of 14 projects only 7 advanced towards the scaling/diffusion stage (Figure 3). The
major reason for this was political dynamism and change of decision-makers that committed to introduce projects.
Political change being in general a positive trend, nevertheless, turned out to be a challenge for institutionalizationand diffusion of the projects.

110Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

Figure 3. Projects evaluation against SIC and SPT (Armenia)
15
10
5

14

14

8
7
8

0

0

7
0

SPT

SIC

SIC

SPT

Source: Figure compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related tothe projects
Ukraine. Almost all projects supported by UNDP, SocialBoost and other organizations were hi-tech
initiatives, in which advanced technologies were used. The criteria of involvement of technology, mostly in form of
ICT solutions, were introduced by the projects. All projects accomplished the criteria of interaction of different
actors/sectors/disciplines and engaged with numerous actors locally, which allowed project ideas cross-cutting
several sectors. All project ideas proved to be new in the social context of local communities in Ukraine, albeit
proving their social impact was problematic due to the absence of indicators, proper pre and post-analysis of the
problem, and the lack of access to open data. Since criteria that UNDP applied on the projects were met, all projects
also went through the stages of generation of social innovations both by social innovation cycle and social practicetheory. Tables 6 and 7 covered all projects and demonstrated how each of them advanced towards being social
innovation. Key elements of social practice such as physicality, materiality and competences were addressed by the
projects in local communities and governments. They consisted of aspects required for new social practice,technology and knowledge of the project team. Also, SocialBoost and other organizations invested in building
missing capacity and mentorship of the projects’ members and assisted in making necessary connections between
the projects and interested organizations.
UNDP and partner organizations in Ukraine have also emphasized two aspects, namely 1) human-centeredapproach and 2) social impact, that could make the project a ‘social innovation’. Former UNDP Ukraine staff
member in charge of social innovations, Maksym Klyuchar emphasizes the human-centered aspect that should
prevail in any project that is supposed to be called a ‘social innovation’. He argues:“Social innovation is tried and tested approach. And by tried and tested I mean tried and tested by people, not by
the designers of an idea, but rather than by actual future users of this approach. So, tried and tested approach of
making a public service, or making a polity closer to the citizens, more user friendly and accessible for the citizens,and trying to reduce the costs to deliver this service, or making this service faster”.20
The co-founder and the lead of SocialBoost Denis Gurskiy adds the aspect of social impact through theextensive use of technology, that is required for the project to become a ‘social innovation’. He says:“Social Innovation in 2018 is definitely the reinvention or redesign of social, economic or political processes which
directly impacts peoples’ lives. And this definitely happens with extensive use of technology”.21
As in the case of UNDP and Kolba Lab in Armenia, in Ukraine human-centered approach and social impact,
have been highlighted as the core aspects of ‘social innovation’. Additionally, technology was mentioned as the20

Klyuchar, Knowledge Management Expert at United Nations Development Program at Ukraine under the Democratization and Human Rights

Program 2013 – 2016. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer, 2018, March 5).
21

Gursky, Lead of Social Boost, Co-founder of 1991 Open Data Incubator . (B. Radjabov, Interviewer, 2018, March 5).

111

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019mean of introduction of ‘social innovation’.

Projects
SemaSearch
Swiss knife
B-beeperTable 6. Social Innovation Cycle (Projects in Ukraine)
Prompts
PropoProtoSustainScaling
sals
types
ing
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

POIZDka” (TRAINride)

✓

✓

✓

I Gave A Bribe” (later
merged into CorruptUA)
Moya Oselya

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

My e-school

✓

✓

✓

Open budget visualization

✓

✓

✓

Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk

✓

✓

✓

One-Stop-Shop Centre for
Administrative Service
Provision in NovogradVolynskiy Municipality
Participatory budget in 63
cities (IT tool)
Municipal Open Budget
Platform
Open Data Bot

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

ReDonbass mobile app

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

1991 Open Data Incubator

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

E-cemetery service(booking places for dead incemetery)Navizor data set

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Agri-eye e-data set

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Anchor is me (E-service onenergy utilities forhouseholds)
Service for local petition

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Systemic
ChangeMarking dogs in the cities
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
with censors
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources
related to the projects

112

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

Projects

Table 7. Social Practice Theory (Projects in Ukraine)
Invention/imitation
ImplementDiffuInstitutionation
sion
alization

SemaSearch✓✓

Swiss knife✓✓

B-beeper
POIZDka” (TRAINride)
I Gave A Bribe” (later
merged into CorruptUA)
Moya Oselya
My e-school

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

Open budget
visualization
Mobile Ivano-Frankivsk
One-Stop-Shop Centre
for Administrative
Service Provision in
Novograd-Volynskiy
Municipality
Participatory budget in
63 cities (IT tool)
Municipal Open Budget
Platform
Open Data Bot
ReDonbass mobile app

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

Socialchange1991 Open Data✓✓✓✓
Incubator
E-cemetery service✓✓✓✓(booking places for deadin cemetery)
Navizor data set✓✓✓✓
Agri e-data set✓✓✓✓
Anchor is me (E-service✓✓✓✓
on energy utilities forhouseholds)
Service for local petition✓✓✓✓
Marking dogs in the✓✓✓✓cities with censors
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related
to the projects

Projects have been evaluated against the stages of generation of social innovations in accordance with social
innovation cycle and social practice theory. Both approaches showed that out of 21 projects, 14 advanced towards
scaling/diffusion stage (Figure 4). The major reason for this was political dynamism and change of decision-makers
that committed to introduce projects.

113

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Figure 4. Projects evaluation against SIC and SPT (Ukraine)
21

30
20
10

14

14

21
14

0

14

0

SPT

0

SIC

SIC

SPT

Source: Figure compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related to theprojects
In Uzbekistan almost all projects and UNDP proposed ideas were low-tech initiatives, meaning that
advanced technologies were rarely used. Special attention was given to criteria of interaction of different
actors/sectors/disciplines involved in idea generation and implementation. Almost all projects accomplished thisgoal and could engage with numerous actors locally, in order to propose project ideas cross-cutting several sectors.
All project ideas proved to be new in the social context of local communities in Uzbekistan, albeit proving theirsocial impact was problematic. Having UNDP-led initiatives for the analysis, together with small scaled projects,
showed that development projects driven by donor can go through the similar stages of social innovation cycle.
However, it does not make them social innovations. Tables 8 and 9 summarize projects and UNDP-led initiatives
and demonstrates that several UNDP-led initiatives could advance to the stage of scaling. None of the projects or
UNDP-led initiatives could make a systemic change that requires more time and efforts.
UNDP in Uzbekistan highlighted two characteristics of ‘social innovation’ such as: 1) being new for thesocial context, and 2) delivering the public good. In this context, UNDP Good Governance Unit Program Associate
Ms. Emiliya Asadova says:“Social innovations are solutions that work for resolution of social problem/issue. They do not have tobe scientifically new. Sometimes they can be new for the certain area/context. For example, somethingused in farming can be used in medicine”.22
Manager of the UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project Mr. Bokhodir
Ayupov argues that:“Social Innovation is an innovation that is social, that is beneficial for the society, especially forvulnerable groups of the society, not as a priority, but as an additional aspect. I have never consideredfinancial component excluded from social innovation. In other words, social innovation can be
profitable, though the practice shows that such examples are quite rare. Many people see social
innovation as a charity. But the essence of social innovation is delivering public good. As for innovation
itself, it is about unconventional approaches and using existing systems and opportunities by integratingthem for public good. It can be an invention in the core of social innovation”.23

Asadova, Program Associate at UNDP, Good Governance Unit. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer, 2017, August 27).
Ayupov, Project Manager at UNDP/UNV Project ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer,
2017, August 7).
22
23

114

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

In Uzbekistan, UNDP has viewed ‘social innovation’ as something that might have the invention in its core,and be relatively (not necessarily absolutely) new for the certain social context. Also, ‘social innovation’, according
to UNDP, should deliver a public good desirable for the society.
Table 8. Social Innovation Cycle (Projects in Uzbekistan)
Prompts Propo- Proto- SustainProjects
sals
types
ing
“Fantasy-Club” Initiatives✓✓✓“Crafty Master”✓✓✓“IT masters”✓✓✓“The week of football”✓✓✓“Mobile electro station”‘Afishka’ Festival of auteur theory andsocial films
Film on TB prevention
Summer Camp and DIY Labs in Muynak
Web site of Muynak
Debates Tournament in Andijan
Voice of Volunteerism
Training on reproductive health among
Roma population
Translations of audio and video for theDeaf and Hard of Hearing
Theatre by children
Module “All the money under control”
Raising awareness campaigns on Breast
Cancer prevention among women in
Jizzakh.
“Enjoying old age”

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

“Inspired Teachers”

✓

✓

✓

“English guides”

✓

✓

✓

Video project about people living with HIV

✓

✓

✓

‘Social Entrepreneurship skills’

✓

✓

✓

Constructor
E-dairy
Infobox.uz
Peers club
Eco bags with Korzinka.uz (UNDP-led)
Taxi for people with disabilities with
‘Perekrestok’ Taxi company (UNDP-led)
Promotion of local tourism in social
networks (with LGSP project) (UNDP-led)Café Scientifique (UNDP-led)
Iact. Volunteers platform (UNDP-led)

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

Volunteers engagement (in the NatLib(UNDP-led)
Do It Yorself (DIY) Lab (UNDP-led)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓
✓

Scaling

✓

✓

✓

✓

Systemic
Change“Shower and water supply” in the fields in✓✓✓rural areas plus foil to warm up water
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related
to the projects

115

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Table 9. Social Practice Theory (Projects in Uzbekistan)
Projects
Invention/
ImplementDiffuimitation
ation
sion
“Fantasy-Club” Initiatives✓✓“Crafty Master”✓✓“IT masters”✓✓“The week of football”✓✓“Mobile electro station”✓✓‘Afishka’ Festival of auteur theory and social
films
Film on TB prevention
Summer Camp and DIY Labs in Muynak
Web site of Muynak
Debates Tournament in Andijan
Voice of Volunteerism
Training on reproductive health among Roma
population
Translations of audio and video for the Deafand Hard of Hearing
Theatre by children
Module “All the money under control”

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

Institutionalization

Socialchange

✓
✓

✓

✓

✓

Raising awareness campaigns on Breast✓✓
Cancer prevention among women in Jizzakh.
“Enjoying old age”✓✓
“Inspired Teachers”✓✓“English guides”✓✓
Video project about people living with HIV✓✓‘Social Entrepreneurship skills’✓✓
Constructor✓✓
E-dairy✓✓
Infobox.uz✓
Peers club✓✓
Eco bags with Korzinka.uz (UNDP-led)✓✓✓✓
Taxi for people with disabilities with✓✓
‘Perekrestok’ Taxi company (UNDP-led)
Promotion of local tourism in social networks✓✓(with LGSP project) (UNDP-led)Café Scientifique (UNDP-led)✓✓
Iact. Volunteers platform (UNDP-led)✓✓
Volunteers engagement (in the NatLib✓✓✓✓(UNDP-led)
Do It Yourself (DIY) Lab (UNDP-led)✓✓“Shower and water supply” in the fields in✓✓rural areas plus foil to warm up water
Source: Table compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related
to the projects

To carry out new social practices, key elements have been covered. Projects have possessed physicality, newthings (and sometimes new technologies), as well as practical knowledge and understanding of new social practices.
They were intended to be introduced into the existing social structure in local governments and communities in
Uzbekistan. These key elements of social practice were achieved due to the mixture of existing expertise andknowledge of leaders of the projects and specialized training conducted for them by UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation
and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project. This capacity helped to reach prototyping or implementation stage by the116Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

majority of projects. However, only 2 could advance towards the next stage of sustaining/institutionalization andscaling/diffusion (see Figure 5), due to the lack of civic activism, and commitment to introduce innovation and newsocial practices. Out of 33 submitted projects supported by UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in
Uzbekistan’ Project, 28 advanced to prototyping stage, and 11 projects involved new technology. Only 2 could
proceed to the stage of diffusion and have later been institutionalized. These two projects have not correspondedwith criteria of social innovation and were full UNDP-led initiatives. Moreover, to make a social change that would
require turning social invention into social innovation that consequently creates new social facts widely acceptedby the society, would certainly require more time. Since, at the moment, UNDP/UNV ‘Social Innovation andVolunteerism in Uzbekistan’ Project has been completed in 2014, one concludes that it has not generated social
innovations.
Figure 5. Projects evaluation against SIC and SPT (Uzbekistan)
28
30
20

28
2

2

10
0

0

2

2

0

SPT
SIC

SIC

SPT

Source: Figure compiled by author based on data from the interviews, documents and online sources related
to the projects
4. Conclusion
Analysis of projects supported by UNDP has been conducted in accordance with the theoretical frameworkof the current study. Based on this, the study has the following findings: UNDP in all countries implied (but notalways applied) a human-centered approach in the projects to generate ‘social innovations’. Not all of solutions
offered by UNDP in Armenia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan were sustainable social practices. Not all of these solutions
were institutionalized/sustaining, diffused/scaled. Hence, not all of them are likely to be social innovations.
In Armenia 7 projects are likely to be seen as social innovations; The major reasons for projects not to advancetowards being social innovations are: (a) political dynamism and (b) lack of personal commitment of policy makers
to introduce innovation; In Ukraine 14 projects are likely to be seen as social innovations; The major reasons for
projects not to advance towards being social innovations are: (a) political dynamism and (b) lack of personalcommitment of policy makers to introduce innovation; In Uzbekistan 0 projects are likely to be seen as social
innovations; The major reasons for projects not to advance towards being social innovations are: (a) 2 projects at
scaling stage were UNDP-led development projects, not social innovations and (b) lack of personal commitment ofpolicy makers to introduce innovation.
The study found that in Armenia and Ukraine, where civil society was relatively strong, communities could
advocate for more accountability and transparency of government institutions on local and national levels. Raisingpublic awareness and public control, through citizens’ participation, and their access to the open data, enabled theintroduction and implementation of projects that might advance towards being social innovations which makesystemic/social change. Projects which failed to advance towards making social/systemic change, and possibility of
becoming social innovations, were projects where private sector (market), public sector (state) and civic sector(community) failed to cooperate. Across the countries, this study found the following problems challenging
117

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019advancement of the projects towards social innovations: (a) Lack of data (open data) (b) Lack of civic activism; (c)Lack of institutionalization possibilities of social innovations due to the missing personal commitment of policy
makers. Theories discussed in this study have not covered social capital and the role of ‘intrapreneurs’ or ‘insiders’,
who contribute to generation of ‘social innovation’ projects in local governments and communities. Although notunderestimating the role of other elements of social innovation, this study highlights the role of social capital as anelement that was overlooked in the analysis of generation of social innovations on local level. Strictly speaking,theories and evidence from the case studies embody a massive amount of social interactions happening among
various actors. The human-centered approach and the support of the projects led by individuals (mid-career
employees in Armenia or project leaders in Ukraine and Uzbekistan) have been highlighted in the study. However,social relationships making resources of interacting individuals, or in other words a social capital, available forsolution of a problem was not researched. It is required to further study this area to understand the significant roleof social capital and add it as an element helping to generate the social innovation.

118

Bakhrom RADJABOV, A Critical Analysis of UNDP-Supported “Social Innovation” Projects

References
Asadova, E. (2017, August 27). Program Associate at UNDP, Good Governance Unit. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer)
Ayupov, B. (2017, August 7). Project Manager at UNDP/UNV Project ‘Social Innovation and Volunteerism in
Uzbekistan’. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer)
Barraket, J. (2015). Evidence review: Social innovation for health equity promotion. Victoria, Australia: VicHealth.
Bengt-Arne, V. (2007). What Future Conceptual and Social Innovations? Journal of Futures Studies, 12(2), 91-100.
Bhatt, P. (2013). How social capital is leveraged in social innovations under resource constraints?". Management
Decision, 51, 1772-1792.
Buchegger, B. (2000). Social Innovations on the Way to Sustainable Development. ESEE Conference (pp. 1-11).
Vienna: Zentrum für soziale Innovation.
Domanski, D. (2015). Social Innovation in Latin America: The Chilean Case. Santiago, Chile: Cieplan.
Domanski, D. (2017). Exploring the Research Landscape of Social Innovation. Dortmund, Germany: A deliverableof the project Social Innovation Community (SIC).
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2013). Old problems, new solutions: Measuring the capacity for social innovation
across the world. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
European Commission. (2013). Guide to Social Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
European Communities. (2005). Social innovation, governance and community building. DG Research European
Commission. Brussels: European Comission.
Evers, A. (2012). Social Innovations for Social Cohesion. On concepts and first findings of a cross-country study.
(pp. 1-25). Tübingen: DVPW-Kongress.
Gursky, D. (2018, March 5). Lead of Social Boost, Co-founder of 1991 Open Data Incubator . (B. Radjabov,Interviewer)
Hochgerner, J. (2011). The Analysis of Social Innovations as Social Practice. Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, 1-14.
Hochgerner, J. (2012). Challenge Social Innovation. Challenge Social Innovation: An Introduction (pp. 4-385).
Berlin: Springer.
Howaldt, J. (2014). Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation - A critical Literature Review. Dortmund,
Germany: A deliverable of the project: ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE).
Howaldt, J. (2015). On the theory of social innovations: Tarde's neglected contribution to the development of asociological innovation theory. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Howaldt, J. (2015). Social Innovations as Drivers of Social Change – Exploring Tarde’s Contribution to Social
Innovation Theory Building. New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, 29-51.
Ionescu, C. (2015). About the conceptualization of social innovation. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22, 5362.
Klyuchar, M. (2018, March 5). Knowledge Management Expert at United Nations Development Program at Ukraine
under the Democratization and Human Rights Program 2013 – 2016. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer)
Kolba Lab. (2013, January 1). What is Kolba Lab? Retrieved February 13, 2017, from Kolba Lab:
http://kolba.am/en/FAQ
Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years. London: Office ofThird Sector.
Lubelcová, G. (2012). Social Innovations in the Context of Modernization. Sociológia, 44, 291-313.
Mkhitaryan, M. (2017, December 22). UNDP Armenia, Kolba Innovations Lab lead. (B. Radjabov, Interviewer)
Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated? The Young
Foundation. Oxford: Basingstoke Press.
Murray, R. (2010). The open book of Social Innovation. London, United Kingdom: The Young Foundation.
Nohra, T. (2010). From social innovation to public policy Success stories in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin América and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
Oosterlynck, S. (2015). Local social innovation and welfare state restructuring: analysing their relationship.
Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy . Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
Osburg, T. (2013). Social Innovation. Solutions for a Sustainable Future. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: SpringerVerlag.
119

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 11 ONLINE / March 2019

Pel, B. (2014). The Institutionalization of Social Innovation between Transformation and Capture. Rotterdam:
TRANSIT Project.
Pol, E. (2009). Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38 (6), 878-885.
Puttick, R. (2013). NESTA Standards of Evidence: an approach that balances the need for evidence with innovation.
London: NESTA.
Schubert, C. (2014). Social innovations: highly reflexive and multireferential phenomena of today's innovationsociety? A report on analytical concepts and social science initiative. Berlin: TUTS.
SI-Drive. (2018). Atlas of Social Innovation. New Practices for a better future. Dortmund, Germany: European
Comission.
SocialBoost. (2014, January 1). SocialBoost (Summary). Retrieved February 13, 2017, from SocialBoost:
http://socialboost.com.ua/
Tucker, S. (2014). Social Innovation for Public Service Excellence. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service
Excellence. Singapore: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP/UNV Social Innovation and Volunteerism in Uzbekistan Project. (2012, August 1). Social Innovation andVolunteerism in Uzbekistan Project. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from Social Innovation and Volunteerismin Uzbekistan Project Goal:
http://www.uz.undp.org/content/uzbekistan/en/home/operations/projects1/democratic_governance/socialinnovation-and-volunteerism-in-uzbekistan.html
Windrum, P. (2016). The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: a bridge between service an social
innovation re- search. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (2), 1-20.

120