INTRODUCTION The Chronicles of (Social) Innovation have as a mission to address innovation issues away from the narrow context of technology and closer to the quest of social bettering or in fact innovation. In this quest I will be examining and sharing with you, in a constructive manner, the forces, roles and stakeholders input and induced notions. Starting with the biggest societal formations that we currently experience, the countries, we will be seeing how these organizations affect the social life and how the ‘rectangular’ control, democracy, education, taxation shape the motivational context of each group of people or each individual. The starting point would the world construct of the present and the focus (without excluding external references) would be the western type democracies as generally appreciated to be the most advanced societal systems so far. Democratic states tend to pose a different face for societal improvements based on the political teleological approach of elected leaderships. That way the voter may have the opportunity to reflect on his/her aspirations on futuristic terms through the teleological narrative of the mp/leader/manager. This is a straightforward approach and one might think that as soon as the competition between future leaders forces them to adopt ever evolving ideas, the voter is left with better choices and eventually he/she helps the concept of sustainable societal evolution. Of course this is far from being characterized as a truth. As personal biases, educational background, vision suggest the appearance of more than one reality, it becomes evident that people tend to support different types of ideas and eventually leaderships. This does not mean that people can not change or change their mind! Setting limits Recently between Europe and the US there has been (and still going on) a debate of pro and contra austerity. This debate is based on the local perceived realities of the leaderships. On the one hand we have the German driven notion that we must live according to our capabilities (financial & social), puts inevitably puts a limit to our capabilities and on the other hand we have the US clamming that growth is essential as a means of social development and if we finance it cleverly it will return more. Both approaches may seem right depending on the point of view but only one is clearly inconsistent with the human DNA and that is pure austerity. The human history has been a constant chase for improvement driven by the evolutionary structure or our biology. Imposing austerity everywhere sets limits to what we can achieve. Soon these limits are going to be transferred to the products of Europe (cars, appliances, fabrics, etc.). Why buy something that may not be the best or among the best since the Europeans are limited! Not a dual issue On a second approach since reality is not single faced with dual characteristics (right – wrong, true – false, black – white), the same way we should approach the austerity – non austerity issue. Doses of austerity could be included in non performing public services, like municipalities, health services, etc. and at the same time subsidies could be used to enhance direct foreign and domestic investment even for small projects. As governments seem more and more unable (especially in the south of Europe) to sustain growth and social responsibility, some initiatives could be passed to the private organizations or the private sector in general. It is evident that wild fires for example could not be fought against without the help of private volunteers. As volunteers have a greater sense of responsibility (it’s their own land that is at stake) from professional fire fighters one thing becomes evident. Ownership acts for motivation, responsibility and result.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:28:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015