Specificity of agents and processes

The first framework applies the Diverse Economies Framework (DEF), to the research question: “What diverse agents and processes involved in social innovation activity”. The DEF is a research tool designed to decentre the ‘strong theory’ of capitalist economy.23 _{It identifies the diverse range of agents and} processes involved in ‘more-than-capitalist’ endeavours. This involves attending to the actancy of practices which might otherwise be obscured by always being positioned in relation to capitalism (Gibson-Graham 2014a, p.82; St. Martin, Roelvink & Gibson-Graham 2015, p.4).

For example, private capitalist businesses are the form of enterprise most commonly recognised by public sector policies as contributing to ‘the economy’. Using the DEF, it is possible to make visible the presence of and economic roles played by a wide range of enterprise forms – such as worker-owned cooperatives, social enterprises, sole proprietorships, and even feudal enterprises. These forms

23 _{The DEF has been applied to a range of different contexts and sectors (for some examples, see: Clement-}

Couzner 2016; Lyne 2016; Dombroski 2016; Morrow & Dombroski 2015; Morgan & Kuch 2015; Fleming 2015; Cameron & Wright 2014; Lane n.d.; Gibson-Graham, Cameron & Healy 2013; Carnegie 2008; Hill 2003).

each have different logics and dynamics – including how they generate, appropriate and distribute value (or surplus), and these do not necessarily conform to those of private capitalist businesses. By foregrounding this heterogeneity, it becomes possible to challenge the positioning of capitalist business as an ideal-type enterprise.

The DEF provides a framework through which to inventory diverse practices of not just enterprise, but also labour, transactions, property and finance. The type of economic activity is identified as either capitalist - i.e. the focus of mainstream economic discourse; ‘alternative’ - i.e. distinguished from mainstream activities by commitment to an ethic that qualifies a ‘business as usual’ approach; and ‘other’ (i.e. organised by commitments and dynamics that are non-capitalist). The combination and interaction of these together make up the diverse economy. Table 1 (adapted from Gibson-Graham 2006a; Gibson-Graham, Cameron & Healy 2013) provides brief examples of ‘alternative’ and ‘other’ agents and practices that can be involved in public policy and programs.

Table 1: A diverse economy of agents & processes

Labour Enterprise Transactions Property Finance

Waged Capitalist Mainstream-market Private Mainstream-_market Alternative- paid • Self-employed & family businesses • Secondments • Reciprocal / in-kind (incl. pro bono) • Work-for- welfare Alternative- capitalist • Public-sector- owned enterprises • Social businesses Alternative-market • Commissioning processes designed to open markets for alt.- capitalist, non- capitalist or local suppliers

• Contracts specifying alt.-capitalist, non- capitalist and/or local suppliers

• Local currencies

Alternative- private

• Publicly owned hard & soft (e.g. data sets) assets • Assets of not- for-profits • Community land trusts Alternative- market • Social investment • Community bonds • Peer-to-peer lending • Microfinance • Interest free loans • Competitive grants Unpaid • Interns • Advisory groups • Service-users input • Volunteering Non-capitalist • Employee / community- owned co-ops • Social enterprises • Not-for-profits • Sole-traders • Unincorporated groups • Households Non-market • Non-competitive contracts • Enterprises sharing ‘back-office’ resources Open Access • Creative commons • Open-source intellectual property Non-market • Non-competitive grants • Crowd-funding

I use the DEF _{toidentify and describe the diverse agents and processes involved} in social innovation assemblages, and to present these in language that helps to legitimise their often obscured contributions (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink 2009b). Using the DEF highlights the economic contributions being made, presents them in language that ‘makes sense’ within the hegemonic economic discourse prevalent in policymaking contexts, and through this dispels perceptions that ‘the economy’ is solely the domain of ‘proper businesses’ that generate distributed financial returns. In this way, as discussed below, the DEF helps to open up possibilities around how relationships between public sector actors and their stakeholders might be reconfigured to generate social value. Identifying and describing these diverse actors is a crucial step towards reconfiguring the relationships between them, including those involving public

sector entities. The clarity afforded by this process of making visible helps us ‘think past’ the existing regulations, policies and norms that often obscure where different approaches may be possible, and as the case studies show also help to identify where openings for ‘this process of making new social relations’ may already exist (Parker, Cheney, Fournier & Land 2014a, p.367). In this way, applying the DEF to the case studies also provides insights relevant to the second research question: “Where are the key negotiating and decision-making points that open up opportunities for social innovation?”.

A reconfigured picture of the economy also allows social innovation actors to ‘see themselves’ within it and encourages them to identify and develop relationships with other like-minded entities, and so to create networks of interaction focused on building community economies (St. Martin, Roelvink & Gibson-Graham 2015, p.11). This new picture has the potential to prompt a change in thinking about roles that different actors are often traditionally assigned, and which constrain opportunities to think and do differently. The DEF therefore also creates the opening through which a performative orientation to the third research question can be approached: “What role/s does the public sector play in enabling social innovation activity?”. As the in-depth case studies demonstrate, the DEF inventorying process is a potent tool that can identify where significant value is being generated by and for communities, and where this may contribute to achieving a wide range of socio-economic policy objectives.