![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
It cannot be assumed that technological innovations and social innovations are desirable per se. An innovation usually has positive as well as negative impacts on people, making its normative assessment a major research challenge. This has become increasingly recognized in the innovation literature. At the same time, subjective well-being (SWB) research has developed and matured largely independently of innovation studies. This paper puts forward a general conceptual framework of the (social) innovation – SWB nexus as a step towards the development of a unified normative “well-being theory of innovation” that applies to all types of innovation, e.g. social as well as technological innovation. Its main feature is the inclusion of multiple direct and indirect SWB impacts of processes as well as of outcomes. The framework can act as a focussing device that raises awareness of the many potential SWB impacts of innovation. SWB impacts should be used as an additional metric in the assessment of innovation, complementing other assessment approaches.
Notes
1. In this paper, the term technological innovation is used to refer to for-profit business innovation (or commercial innovation). Innovations differ in terms of intended purposes and objectives, giving rise to many definitional and boundary issues, as witnessed by the many attempts to define SI (see, e.g. Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller Citation2008; Howaldt and Schwarz Citation2010; BEPA Citation2011; Hochgerner Citation2013; Grimm et al. Citation2013; Unceta, Castro-Spila, and Fronti Citation2016). In order to distinguish SI from technological innovation, we adopt the European Commission (Citation2017) definition of SI as “new ideas that meet social needs, create social relationships and form new collaborations. These innovations can be products, services or models addressing unmet needs more effectively”. In other words, SI is both social in its ends and in its means (Murray, Caulier-Grice, and Mulgan Citation2010; BEPA Citation2011).
2. It should be noted that much of the literature (especially outside psychology) uses the terms SWB, life satisfaction, happiness, etc. in often misleading and confusing ways. For example, “happiness” is often used because it is more attention grabbing than other terms, even when talking about other types of SWB. In fact, in economics the term “happiness research” has become the established label for SWB research. The OECD (Citation2013, 184) explicitly discourages the use of the term happiness, especially for release of SWB data by statistical agencies.
3. It is interesting to note that there are parallels between Ruskin’s (Citation1906) approach to wealth and Sen’s capability approach, to the extent that Ruskin’s ideas seem a predecessor of Sen’s. With the exception of Craig (Citation2006), this is not usually acknowledged.