Excerpt 1

Introduction

Social upheavals are attracting public attention more and more often. The escalating conflicts lead even average citizens to the conclusion that “something needed to be done.

But what exactly?
It is best to first turn to existing experience with social innovation and reform. And, frankly, there’s more than enough! Without even going deep into history, only in the last 100 years have we
observed the rise and fall of entire states, and massive scale of industrialization. We watched how new countries were created and old ones disintegrated.

All these events were monitored and planned. Results were expected from them. They were part of a big plan, big scale reforms. Here are important questions: what do these reforms lead to and how are they carried out? What errors occur? What strong solutions can other governments apply? Is the experience unique to each country? Despite the fact that sociology has many interpretations of the concept of “social problem,” none of them reflects their scope entirely. The same is with the concept of “social innovation”— it is considered too narrowly, referring to individual groups or communities, less often—society as a whole.
Society in its composition is the interaction of many obvious and non-obvious factors that shape the behavior of individuals, groups and communities. In order to manage these processes, one needs to have a good understanding of their dynamics, of the real needs of citizens. The manager must take into account resource constraints and the range of issues these cover. Social innovation should solve specific problems, have clear goals and predictable results.

Social innovation can be roughly divided into four levels:

• Individual Level
• City Level
• Country Level
• World Level.

Each of these levels has its own specifics, which must be taken into account when social
reforms are developed. Since their boundaries are conditional, this specificity is expressed, rather,
in the points of focus, than through specific features. For example: the educational reform in a given
country is impossible without the reform of the individual, and the reform of the individual is
determined through the reform of behavior and the system of control over it. If the control system
does not cope with the task, or the behavioral reform does not meet the level of expectation, then
this calls into question the viability of an education reform itself. At the same time, all processes are designed to take into account the level of citizens’ trusting their government.

The problem of introducing social innovations is considered in this book through the prism of specific precedents—innovations at the country level. As an example, we analyze the social
innovation of countries such as: Singapore, China, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Russia, Canada, Norway, USA, Iceland and Portugal.

Each of the chapters is dedicated to a different country and presents a clearly structured
case study:

1. Historical reference. In what conditions did social innovations arise and where was it
   introduced?
2. Setting the objectives. What exactly did the government of this or that country
   want to resolve?
3. Solutions “+” and solutions “-“. State-level mistakes and strong moves that may
   be useful for other countries to adopt.
4. Conclusions and recommendations.

The main case of this book, The Challenges of Social Governance in Singapore, covers the
largest number of levels. It is approached from the point of view of the formation and development
of the state, the experience of which can be applied in various conditions. The remaining examples
are intended to highlight the strengths or weaknesses of similar innovations in other countries,
highlight similarities and differences, or provide a counter-example.
We also need to clarify: countries love to talk about their successes and they hide their
mistakes well. In particular, when studying materials about Singapore, very little scientific literature
was found that would talk about management errors. However, the purpose of this book is not to
criticize the governments of a particular country. Our task is to identify good and not so good
solutions that can be applied to benefit other communities.

Excerpt 2

Setting objectives for development of Singapore

Development process of Singapore required solutions in many areas (and most importantly,
task formalization!). Naturally, it was not done without mistakes, setbacks and consequences thatquestion the future of the entire country. But it is also obvious that decisions that were made
generated rapid growth and development, transforming the entire country into a solid corporation
called “Singapore.”
The PAP leadership initially set an ambitious goal—to make Singapore a reliable partner for
international business. The government has organized joint state-owned enterprises with foreign
private partnerships, thus providing guarantees for the capital invested in the country.
The People’s Action Party’s actions can be roughly divided into the following steps:

Situational assessment/inventory of resources
Emerging Singapore was completely dependent on colonial infrastructure. It also inherited
the methods of governance that the new administration continued to employ. Lacking a stable
economy, the government decided to attract any industries that are going to provide jobs, and most
importantly, specialists who were willing to train new workers.

Goal setting

Both the purchasing power of the population and the potential of the domestic market were
adequately assessed by the PAP as insignificant. It was decided to sell the existing production
capacity through export. The government attracted foreign businesses to the country with tax
breaks and cheap labor.
The Singapore government decided to run the country as a growing business. It took
control of most aspects of citizens’ lives, the work of trade unions, and eliminated any existing
opposition. The “survival” ideology has become the official ideology. The authorities consistently
reinforced the Singaporeans with an all-or-nothing argument. Justifying the rules of the dictatorship,
the government openly insisted on its necessity. And in return, it provided citizens with significant,
but not full state support, providing almost full employment.

Excerpt 3

Solutions for drug crisis in Portugal

Decriminalization of personal use («+»)
The issues of legalization and decriminalization of narcotic substances have their supporters
and opponents. However, the main argument that is most often discussed is easement of access to
drugs and its consequences. For many, it is obvious that if the trafficking of narcotics for personal
use is decriminalized, this will create the preconditions for an epidemiological surge in drug
addiction among the population. The opinion is very strong that it is precisely the ban and punitive
measures that help curb the widespread drug addiction in society.

What does the Portugal decriminalization experience demonstrate? Yes, there was some initial
statistical growth in the number of drug users that can be explained by an increase in the reliability
of data of the real number of addicts. However, decriminalization has shown an initial decrease
in drug use among young people. Then there was a steady and strong decline in drug use
among the entire population. Countries that have adopted an integrated approach to the problem
of drug addiction (such as the Netherlands) have shown similar trends, albeit with their own
specifics.
“By comparing the trends in Portugal and neighbouring Spain and Italy, we can say that while some trends
clearly reflect regional shifts (e.g. the increase in use amongst adults) and/or the expansion of services
throughout Portugal, some effects do appear to be specific to Portugal. Indeed, the reduction in problematic
drug users and reduction in burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system were in direct contrast
to those trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy. Moreover, there are no signs of mass expansion
of the drug market in Portugal. This is in contrast with apparent market expansions in neighbouring Spain.”
C. E. Hughes, A. Stevens. What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of drugs? // British
Journal of Criminology (London, United Kingdom: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, November 2010).
— Vol. 50, Issue 6. — p. 1017

Interdepartmental coordination («+»)
At the beginning of the program, the rollout established national level coordination between
ministries and government, resulting in the formation of “persuasion commissions.” The addicts
work with the commission directly, rather than with intermediate government and law enforcement
agencies. That helps to overcome the main obstacle—fear of prosecution. This allowed the
widespread application of the most effective treatment methods.

Such commissions have the following powers:

• classify a drug trafficker and drug user as the “person in need” of a treatment;
• offer voluntary treatment for drug addicts;
• suspend or completely abolish administrative prosecution of the patient;
• impose temporary sanctions on the patient, tied to the course of addiction treatment;
• terminate the legal proceedings at the end of treatment.
  “João Castel-Branco Goulão, the chairman of Portugal’s principal drug policy agency, the Institute on Drugs
  and Drug Addiction (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência—or IDT), emphasized