While there is an established body of work (eg Arthur 2006; Cho in Mair et al 2006; Dey 2010a, 2010b, 2013; Humphries and Grant 2005; Laville 2011; Ridley-Duff 2007, 2008; Steyaert and Dey 2010; Ziegler 2009) taking a critical... [ view full abstract ]
While there is an established body of work (eg Arthur 2006; Cho in Mair et al 2006; Dey 2010a, 2010b, 2013; Humphries and Grant 2005; Laville 2011; Ridley-Duff 2007, 2008; Steyaert and Dey 2010; Ziegler 2009) taking a critical theory-informed approach to researching the social economy, as yet there exists very little that considers directly the theory and practice of social impact measurement (SIM) from a critical perspective. This paper draws primarily on literature from outside social economy research to problematise SIM, using in particular: Foucault’s work on neoliberalism (Foucault 2010) and the subsequent governmentality literature (Dean 2010; Miller and Rose 2010; Rose 1996;), Ian Hacking (1991, 1992) and Theodore Porter’s (1996) work on the use of numbers in public life, and Michael Power (1994, 2011) and Peter Miller and Andrea Mennicken’s work on the history and sociology of accounting (Mennicken and Miller 2012).
Social impact measurement is here viewed broadly as the attempt by social sector organisations to break down their social mission into defined, measurable outcomes, which are then used as the foundation of a system of data collection and analysis.
The paper starts with the claim that SIM can be seen as the quantification of the social. This claim introduces two themes that need expansion:
• Firstly, the paper directly attends to the notion of ‘the social’, a concept that is underexplored within the social economy literature, but which has been examined in detail in other literatures. A brief survey of the history of the concept, primarily following Mitchell Dean (2010) and Nikolas Rose (1996), establishes ‘the social’ as simultaneously inside and outside of the liberal rationality of government – ‘the social’ cannot be derived from liberal political philosophy, but nor is it in fundamental opposition to it. ‘The social’ is, rather, essentially contingent and functions as a tool for government, which governs “in the name of the social” (Rose 1996).
• Secondly, the paper addresses a gap in the existing literature on SIM relating to the implications of quantification. The notion that processes can ‘render reality calculable’ and amenable to intervention is adopted from Miller and Rose (2008), supporting the view that SIM is the next in a long history of processes designed to turn messy, chaotic reality into an ordered space in which problems are known and understood sufficiently for solutions to be put forward and acted upon. Population statistics, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and accounting are three examples of systems of quantification that have had an impact on how public decisions are made.
This discussion leads to a number of observations about SIM.
Firstly, several of the main components of quantification in public life have had a direct impact on the methods and practice of SIM itself (see SROI’s relationship to cost accounting, or the economists’ input into wellbeing valuation). This suggests that the (critical) history of these older disciplines should be considered as research into SIM develops.
Secondly, these bodies of literature help to bring into relief the characteristics of the field of SIM that mark it out as different, such as its explicit claim to practicality of implementation at the cost of the quality of knowledge produced.
Thirdly, and returning to the concept of ‘the social’, a longer perspective can be achieved on the current endeavour to measure, analyse and report on social impact. For example, the exhortation for every delivery organisation in the social economy to evidence its social impact – and the gradual shift towards shared measurement – potentially results in a more comprehensive and more granular knowledge of the social body than has been achieved by other methods. This has implications for the way our society is governed. The ground is thus opened up for the extension of existing critique towards SIM research; Foucault’s work on power / knowledge (Rouse 2005), for example, offers critical perspective on the governmental endeavour to establish ever new forms of knowledge about the population.
The paper concludes with some possibilities for introducing normative standards informed by Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Habermas 1981, 1996), with a look towards social investment as a particular area of interest within the wider practice of social impact measurement.
