Social innovation ecosystems of population health in Germany: exploring policy and networks
Authors: Andrun Ana 
Published: February 2025

PurposeThis research examines social innovations in public health (SIPH) in Erfurt and Hamburg, Germany, from 2021 onwards. There is a need for further research to identify the relationship between policies and their effect on SIPH. This paper responds to this need, through a holistic conceptual framework. It becomes a kaleidoscope for exploration: it explores the narrative of SIPH within their landscapes, both outward and inward. This paper inspects whether there is, if any, PH innovation translated into reality. It informs us about the policy vs reality differences and by doing so it expands the research on PH vs social innovation.Design/methodology/approachThis paper draws on a mixed conceptual framework. The focus is on community SIPH projects, in Hamburg and Erfurt. This paper uses policy field theory to attest to the level of integration between national and state level (1); the ecosystem lens to understand how cities define and create their innovation ecosystem environments (2). It then examines the internal dynamics of the SIPH, exploring whether they exhibit triple or quadruple helix characteristics (Quadruple helix collaboration theory) (3) and whether they are independent (do they behave like an art world in itself) (4) and do they have distinct roles from within (innovation roles theory) (5).FindingsPreliminary findings reveal the absence of community, grass-root level SIPH. Policies are framed within ecosystem narratives: Erfurt’s strong value lies in its university community leadership while Hamburg demonstrates strong cultural component to social innovation. Overall, narratives surrounding social innovation differ, reflecting diverse values and priorities. Further analysis will explore the complex relationship between policy and practice, considering local factors like path dependencies which contribute to the (lack of) community engagement and resources.Research limitations/implicationsThis study focuses on limited national and state policy papers and media sources. The limitation of this is, however, that it may not fully capture the breadth of social innovation initiatives in PH across all levels of governance, healthcare at large, community projects in other geographical areas of the country of Thuringia or for-profit sphere in both cities. It is important to note here that it may largely omit the policy involvement of Thuringia at large, as it focuses on Erfurt. Hamburg, as the state and the city, possesses more capacities and different governmental set-up from Erfurt, which is the capital city of Thuringia state. This is why this paper is not necessarily a comparative one, it is impossible to compare the two. This study furthermore acknowledges a couple of other limitations. First, the diverse theoretical frameworks employed, while offering complementary perspectives (and are being employed precisely for this reason!) are not fully integrated (due to their inherent differences of focus as well as the scope of this research). A more in-depth exploration of each theory could have provided insights. Second, the exclusion of for-profit social enterprises and innovations from the analysis may limit the general applicability of the findings to the broader landscape of social innovation. Third, while the study examined current policies and initiatives, it did not explicitly delve into the historical path dependencies that may have shaped the current context of social innovation in PH. Fourth, the political dimensions of social innovation, such as power dynamics and competing interests among stakeholders, are not explored. Additionally, while this study offers a comprehensive overview, it does not constitute a detailed case study of any of the two cities (which could have provided a more nuanced understanding of specific contexts).Practical implicationsThis research offers practical insights for policymakers and practitioners in the PH sector. By identifying the factors influencing SIPH success, the findings can inform the design and implementation of future initiatives. The comparative analysis of Erfurt and Hamburg demonstrates the need for context-specific strategies that leverage local strengths and address unique challenges. The research emphasizes the importance of collaboration, community engagement and responsive policies to foster sustainable and impactful SIPH.Social implicationsBy analyzing policies holistically and evaluating their level of integration, this paper contributes to discovering a degree of cultural and grass-root readiness towards SIPH.Originality/valueThis research provides a unique grass-root perspective on SIPH in two German cities, highlighting the interplay between policy and local practice. It contributes to a growing body of knowledge on social innovation in the PH sector. By focusing on recent developments and the impact of Germany’s national strategy, the research provides timely and relevant information for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers interested in fostering social innovation for PH. Organizational and sociological perspective, creative theoretical kaleidoscopes, unusual social science approaches to ambiguity of policy worlds might help and, together with the sharp case study methods, discover path dependencies and behaviors we need in order to elevate SIPH in each and community, welcome demographic and health challenges awaiting us with readiness and in time.