Aurora Carneiro Zen (Professor at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)
Professor and researcher in innovation and entrepreneurship
Visiting professor at Sciences Po Grenoble - UGA in 2025
 

Social innovation is defined as a set of initiatives and services designed to meet social needs not met by the market or traditional public policies (Mulgan et al., 2007). In the Latin American context, the challenges of rapid urban growth, socio-economic inequality and crime call for new and adapted solutions.
The literature on innovation presents a territorial approach to understanding innovations in the urban context: the regional innovation ecosystem. The territorial ecosystem approach focuses on how multiple actors from different backgrounds can increase the possibilities for interacting, copying and modifying ideas (Zen et al., 2023).
Two cities stand out for their innovative approaches: Porto Alegre and Medellín. The aim of this article is to analyze how these two metropolises have mobilized social innovation to improve their urban governance and socio-economic development.
Social innovation in urban environments is based on collaborative governance involving interaction between the state, universities, business and civil society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). According to Provan and Kenis (2008), three governance models are observable in innovation networks:

• Shared governance : Decentralization and strong member involvement.
• Governance with an administrative organization : Creation of an independent management entity.
• Governance with a leading organization : A dominant player structures the network.

Regional innovation ecosystems can emerge and develop organically, but the process can also be managed by conscious intervention. Santos, Zen and Bittencourt (2021) observe different motivations and expectations for each group of actors. Lack of alignment between actors could have a negative influence on the development of innovation ecosystems. They argue that each stage in the life cycle of an innovation ecosystem - creation, launch, growth and maturity - requires different coordination strategies. Initially, networks are simpler, so coordination problems are less difficult. However, as the ecosystem evolves and network complexity increases, a more sophisticated strategy, such as orchestration or choreography, is required (Santos, Zen & Bittencourt, 2021). These models help explain how Porto Alegre and Medellín have structured their social innovation ecosystems.
Porto Alegre is internationally renowned for its participatory approach to governance. In 2024, the city's estimated population was 1.4 million (IBGE, 2025). Its commitment to social innovation is based on several key initiatives:

• Participatory Budgeting (1990): This system enables citizens to decide on the allocation of part of the municipal budget. It has been hailed by the UN as one of the best practices in urban management.
• The World Social Forum (2001): created in response to the world economic forums, it brings together organizations and movements to debate economic and social alternatives.
• Alegre Pact (2019): This initiative aims to make Porto Alegre a hub of urban innovation by mobilizing universities, businesses and government.

In the 1980s, Medellín was plagued by drug-related crime. In 2025, the estimated population will be 4.2 million, making it Colombia's second most populous city (WPR, 2025). Since the 2000s, the city has embarked on a profound transformation thanks to policies of social innovation and inclusive urban planning, with three emblematic achievements:

• Metrocable (2004): A cable car transport system linking poor neighborhoods to economic centers, promoting social and economic inclusion.
• Transformation of Comuna 13: A former bastion of crime, this district has become a cultural and tourist center thanks to investments in urban art and infrastructure.
• The University-Business-State Committee (CUEE): For 20 years, this body has facilitated cooperation between institutions to promote research and innovation.

Key success factors and challenges
Analysis of the two cities highlights several key success factors :

• Citizen participation:involving local residents is essential to guaranteeing the effectiveness of social innovation policies.
• Multi-stakeholder governance: cooperation between government, universities, business and civil society strengthens the impact of initiatives.
• Infrastructure and urban mobility : projects such as Metrocable or the Participatory Budget demonstrate that social innovation goes beyond technology.

Despite their success, these experiments face several difficulties:

• Sustainability of funding: social innovation often depends on public or private subsidies, raising the question of sustainability.
• Replication of models : cultural and institutional specificities sometimes limit the adoption of these initiatives in other contexts.
• Measuring impact : assessing the effectiveness of social innovation remains a major methodological challenge.

Social innovation plays a crucial role in the transformation of Latin American cities. Porto Alegre and Medellín illustrate how inclusive public policies, collaborative governance and adapted infrastructures can improve the living environment of citizens.
These two metropolises have developed innovative strategies to respond to urban challenges by mobilizing players from civil society, the private sector and public institutions. The analysis highlights the role of collaborative governance, social inclusion and innovative infrastructures in the evolution of these urban ecosystems.
These experiences underline the importance of a paradigm shift in urban management, where social innovation becomes a strategic lever for sustainable development. The study of these cases opens up perspectives for other cities facing similar challenges. However, adaptation to local contexts and rigorous impact monitoring are essential to ensure the success of these initiatives.
 

References 

^{Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2009). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and the environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1(1), 41-69.}

^{Dos Santos, Carlos Alberto Frantz; Zen, Aurora Carneiro (2023) Creating and Capturing Value in Innovation Ecosystems: A Systematic Literature Review Between 2010 and 2021. Journal of Creating Value, 9, 1-20.}

^{IBGE (2025) - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Econômica https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rs/porto-alegre/panorama}

^{Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: University of Oxford, Young Foundation.}

^{Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.}

^{Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.}

^{Santos, Diego Alex Gazarro dos, Zen, Aurora and Bittencourt, Bruno Anicet (2022), From governance to choreography: coordination of innovation ecosystems, Innovation & Management Review, 19(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-08-2020-0117}

^{WPR (2025) World Population Review - https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/}

^{Zen, Aurora Carneiro; Santos, Carlos Alberto Frantz dos ; Santos, Diego Alex Gázaro dos ; da Rosa, Juliana Ribeiro ; Spindler, Everson Dos Santos (2023) Exploring the theoretical foundations of innovation ecosystems between 2006 and 2020: an analysis at the different approaches. International Journal of Innovation Science, N/D, 1-22.}