ABSTRACT
Governments, historically, were looked upon as a means to either organize society or a means to an innovation end, i.e. providing resources to boost development. Many decades later, as the New Public Management discourse showcases, governments were strained to emulate private sector practices in embracing innovation to design and deliver services. Efficiency was the key focus. Today, in the face of growing resource constraints, governments across the world have to do more with less. They must catalyse an ecosystem with new social innovations that result in far superior outcomes that could not have been achieved simply by market or philanthropic means (Moulaert et al., 2013). The focus is not just on efficiency and effectiveness but also to meet long-term sustainability objectives. This chapter discusses this development in Singapore particularly in arguing that a top-down State-led social innovation approach is necessary but not a sufficient condition to achieve goals of sustainable development, particularly those relating to sustainable innovation. As a catalyst, the Singapore Government endeavours to stimulate creative thinking through collaboration amongst key actors in the hope that solutions derived will be ‘effective, efficient and sustainable’ (Phills et al., 2008; Sorensen and Torfing, 2014). Singapore’s top-down governance approach has seen the country grow from a low middle-income economy to a high-income country in a short period of about five decades. Its economic progress is evident by the steep increase in its GDP per capita, growing from $24,898 in 1991 to $63,050 in 2011 (World Bank, 2013). Nevertheless, its growth and development strategy has given rise to perennial manpower shortages, which it has filled by relying on foreign labour at both ends of the skill spectrum. The growth of foreign labour, which now stands at 40 per cent of the labour force, has produced concerns over congestion externalities, particularly in transport, housing and recreational facilities; and competition for positional goods such as cars, housing and education have become an integral part of political and social discourse in Singapore (Low and
Vadaketh, 2014). This debate surfaced at the General Election in 2011 and focused on the perceived social problems created through an influx of foreign workers. Singapore’s low annualized productivity growth over the past decade, particularly in industrial subsectors that relied heavily on foreign manpower at the lower end of the skills spectrum, accelerated the need for appropriate policy responses to ensure continued economic prosperity. The government has adopted a multi-faceted approach in responding to these challenges: it has introduced specific measures that aim to lower the influx of foreign workers and Singapore’s reliance on foreign workers and placed renewed emphasis on improving productivity, fostering innovation and creating a sustainable Singapore. The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) 2009 outlines a four-pronged strategy – boosting resource efficiency, enhancing urban environment, building new capabilities and fostering community action – through which the Government aims to harness enough action from individuals and companies to achieve its vision (Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), 2014). For instance, it is leading efforts to restructure the economy by encouraging SMEs to reduce their reliance on foreign labour and to raise productivity through multiple initiatives. The Government has also introduced a radical set of incentives and policy settings to address a confluence of these economic and political challenges. Many of these innovative policies are directed at encouraging firms to assess internal practices, to develop a culture of innovation, to invest in new capabilities and to heighten investment in human capital development. What is unique about the set of policy tools and incentives is that they are targeted across the spectrum of business activities in Singapore and not to any particular sector. Taking this macro perspective, this chapter will assess whether the Singapore Government’s policy innovation efforts align with how firms and businesses view the catalytic role of Government, its top-down governance arrangements and are likely to sustain innovative practices. Unlike the social innovation literature that relies primarily on businesses displaying innovation characteristics and meeting social outcomes amidst a business agenda, this chapter also looks at the role of government as a social innovation catalyst. Consequently, the central argument in this chapter is that while innovation can be catalysed, social innovation objectives cannot be achieved solely using a top-down State-driven approach. It requires the firm to sustain innovative practices. The rest of this chapter is organized as follows. The next section discusses sustainability in Singapore and is followed by a discussion of the research methodology and research findings. The final section offers concluding remarks.
