Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Social innovation (SI) has become an important response to rural social, economic and institutional challenges, yet its relationship with public policy remains under-theorised. This paper examines that relationship through an evolutionary economic geography lens, using four rural initiatives in Türkiye and evidence from semi-structured interviews and documentary sources. We argue that the SI-policy nexus is not uniform or simply supportive. Rather, it varies with development path, policy fit, organizational capacity, initiative maturity and external linkages. The findings identify three interaction mechanisms: policy-compensating SI, in which initiatives emerge in response to policy gaps; policy-enabled SI, in which initiatives stabilise or scale through alignment with support structures; and policy-shaping SI, in which initiatives feed lessons and legitimacy back into policy frameworks. These mechanisms relate, though not mechanically, to path extension, path renewal and path creation. The paper contributes by conceptualising the SI-policy relationship as path-sensitive and institutionally mediated, showing that path type alone does not determine policy interaction and demonstrating that the relationship is reciprocal but uneven: policy usually retains greater power because it controls recognition, eligibility and access to support. The study offers a differentiated account of rural SI-policy interaction in an uneven institutional context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karahasan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: