Social impact bonds: a new tool for governance of social programs - evidence from the UK, USA and Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3/4/5/6) ◽  
pp. 261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Dimitrijevska Markoski
2020 ◽  
pp. 0308518X2094152
Author(s):  
Jacob Broom

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are attracting an increasing amount of critical scholarly attention. As an outcomes-based mechanism for financing social services, SIBs financialize social policy through the logic of impact investing. Responding to calls for attention to the politics of SIBs’ development, and breaking with the literature’s focus on cases from the UK and USA, this article explores the emergence of SIBs in Australia. It employs the concept of “fast policy,” which theorizes why and how policies move across borders, and describes the contemporary conditions that enable them to do so. Using document analysis, the article explores the discursive devices and practices used to justify the “pulling in” of SIBs to states in Australia. It finds that key actors in the Australian social impact world justified SIBs’ adoption using their synergy with powerful, popular policy discourses and practices, rather than engaging in political debates about their desirability. The Australian experience illuminates the power of intermediaries and the investors they represent over the design and proliferation of SIBs, as well as the roles played by austerity politics, policy experimentalism, and fast policy infrastructures in producing a context in which SIBs could be made real.


2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy S. Katz ◽  
Benjamin Brisbois ◽  
Suzanne Zerger ◽  
Stephen W. Hwang

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
D. G. Mirakyan

Amid the state budget deficit, there is a problem of financing social projects. In this regard, new sources of extrabudgetary funding for social issues need to be sought. Financial instruments capable of implementing various social programs include social bonds. This study identifies the main characteristics of social impact bonds (SIB): fundamental principles, mechanism of work. The current work describes the practice of implementing social impact projects on education, poverty, ecology, etc., presenting the experience of the USA and several European countries. This study analyses Russia’s present state and prosperities in the development of SIB projects. The research defines the unique catalyst-funds role in processes of impact investment, as well as the suitability of their creation in Russia. The author analyses opportunities and likely risks from social impact projects realization.


Author(s):  
Kevin Albertson ◽  
Chris Fox ◽  
Chris O’leary ◽  
Gary Painter ◽  
Kimberly Bailey ◽  
...  

This chapter reviews the current state of evidence on what works in outcomes-based commissioning using published evaluations of Payment by Results (PbR) and Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) in the UK and SIBs in the US. Findings from these evaluations are arranged under the following broad headings: designing and commissioning, development of markets, performance management, innovation, the role of incentives, and overall outcomes. The evaluations address issues such as the complexity of PbR commissioning models compared to other commissioning exercises, the impact of PbR on the market for social goods, and the development of new or enhanced performance management systems as a result of outcomes-based commissioning. Two areas of innovation are also highlighted: innovation in service design and delivery, and innovation in financing.


Author(s):  
Chris Fox ◽  
Kevin Albertson

A major innovation in public sector commissioning in recent years is the recourse of the state to so called ‘Outcomes-based Contracts’ particularly Payment by Results (PbR) in the UK. A PbR contract contains three elements, a commissioner, a service provider and an outcomes metric. The outcomes metrics is designed, in theory, to align the incentive structures of the commissioner and the service delivery agency so as to achieve efficient results. Thus, PbR is theorised to allow public commissioners to pay a provider of services on the basis of specified outcomes achieved rather than the inputs or outputs delivered. A related innovation is that of Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). SIBs are distinguished from PbR contracts in that they supposedly allow financiers to contribute to the social innovation process by providing working capital. The return on the SIB is calculated using PbR methodology. Compared to a PbR contract, the SIB contract seeks to align the incentive structures, not only of commissioners and providers, but also financiers through an appropriate metrics-based payments scheme. PbR and SIBs have been referred to as key tools for delivering change. In this chapter we set out the theoretical and practical challenges arising from the development and application of PbR and SIBs and consider the evidence of their efficacy or otherwise.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alma Agusti Strid ◽  
James Ronicle

In recent years, Latin America has seen the introduction of innovative pay-for-success mechanisms to fund social programs, including Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) and Development Impact Bonds (DIBs), outcome-based contracts that incorporate the use of private financing from investors to cover the upfront capital required for a provider to set up and deliver a social service. In this context, IDB Lab established a SIB Facility in 2014 to promote the focus on outcomes in social programs and increase outcomes-based commissioning. The SIB Facility has resulted in IDB Lab providing support to developing SIBs in Colombia (first SIB launched in a middle-income country), Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Since then, several employment SIBs have launched in Colombia and Argentina and prefeasibility studies for SIBs on other topics are currently underway in Chile. This Technical Note aims to capture the lessons learnt from developing SIBs in Latin America, focusing on the five countries where the SIB Facility played a pioneering role. The study takes a retrospective view in examining what has been done and a prospective view in considering how challenges can be overcome and how lessons learnt might be considered within the IDB Lab, both at SIB level and at ecosystem level looking at the SIB ecosystems that have started to emerge. In the study, we find that the SIBs that have launched in the study countries were well designed and that there had also been thorough consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the model.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document