Call for papers: Social Outcomes Conference 2021 (CLOSED)

The Social Outcomes Conference is the annual convening of the world's leading researchers, policymakers and practitioners working to improve social outcomes. As in previous years, the conference will feature discussions on the latest thinking and findings from academic research, alongside insights from the emerging practice across different geographies, disciplines and policy areas. 

Due to COVID-19 meeting and travelling restrictions, the conference will once again take place online, as it did in 2020. However, we expect to be able to offer a limited number of in-person places to those wishing to attend the conference in Oxford. The Blavatnik School of Government is fully equipped for ‘hybrid’ in-person/online events.

This year, the conference will be followed by an Engaging with Evidence series consisting of monthly online events which will pick up on themes from the conference. These sessions are designed to provide a forum to tackle or expand on topics that could not be accommodated in the main conference agenda. Research contributions may also be considered for publication in an upcoming special issue of the International Public Management Journal. 

Please complete this form below by 30 April, 12pm BST. Abstracts submitted using this form will be arranged into panels by the conference organisers.  

Please complete this form below by 30 April, 12pm BST. Please use this form to outline the theme that links the individual contributions as well as describe the individual contributions themselves.

Contracting for outcomes has a long history and is increasingly featured as part of a wide literature covering government outsourcing and payment by results. Social impact bonds – which are increasingly known as social outcomes contracts – continue to be launched all over the world and attract a broad network of practitioners. But, these partnerships between governments, charities and social investors can take widely varying forms. Why is this? How do the efforts in different policy domains and geographies compare with one another? What lessons can be learned from efforts to date that might inform government contracting practice more broadly? Might the disruption of COVID-19 lead practitioners and policymakers towards or away from these practices?

While an outcomes logic is perhaps most explicit in outcome-based contracting, there exist a host of other managerial models and learning routines that seek to focus the attention of those delivering goods and services - be they government employees, private contractors, or issue- or policy-based multi-organisational partnerships - on continual improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the societal outcomes governments prioritize for the people they serve. Examples include (but are certainly not limited to) performance management, performance-based budgeting, venture philanthropy, learning forums, rapid cycle testing, and collaborative performance regimes. But, how well do these models work, especially in comparison to one another? Are there emerging practices worth exploring? And, how informed are these approaches by the experience of service users and citizens?

The desire to quantify and measure social impact only grows larger. Efforts are being pushed along by the impact investing and purpose-led business movements that are growing worldwide. Whilst useful at a macro level, there is evidence these efforts can overreach and limit the scope for collaboration and continuous improvement at the delivery level. Can standardisation and harmonisation of measures better enable like-for-like comparison of alternative strategies to enhance decision making? What tools and data are needed to support more comprehensive approaches to value-for-money assessments in contracting decisions? Can different motives for measuring outcomes be reconciled across diverse sectors, policy domains and levels of decision-making, and should they be? Does measurement weaken the voices of citizens and service users?

Public procurement accounts for 12% of GDP in OECD countries. In the UK, procurement accounts for £100bn (47%) of local authority spending. Leveraging these resources to the greatest social and economic effect is crucial for the well-being of suppliers and communities and in ensuring a robust recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. What are the regulatory and policy frameworks which can support sound procurement decision making? What does a culture of good market development, thoughtful contract award, and effective contract management look like, and how can it be promoted? In what ways is social value considered and monitored in procurement processes, including during contract delivery? What has procuring during COVID-19 taught us?

All over the world, there is a ‘geography of discontent’, with local and regional patterns of economic and social deprivation contributing to division and discord. In the UK, regional disparities are greater than in any other major developed economy. Yet governments all over the world have promised to ‘build back better’ after COVID-19. How might public, private and civil society bodies in towns, cities and regions work together to achieve this? Actors in these sectors hold mutual responsibilities towards each other and a collective responsibility towards citizens. This gives them a shared purpose, which can be made explicit and used to help the organisations with a stake in the success of a place to organise their efforts relative to one another. Such local purpose-oriented networks hold promise in incorporating a broader set of voices into decisions about a place, co-ordinating the efforts of a diverse set of organisations, and informing ongoing adaptation in the light of evolving circumstances. How might a network of actors in a place co-ordinate their activity around a common purpose?

Many public services around the world are delivered by private sector or civil society organisations under contract with governments. Given the distinction between purchasing and providing services that this market mechanism brings about, contracts are needed, but this can lead to fragmentation. For people using services, that often means duplicative, superficial interactions with multiple services which are not joined up. Fixing this requires coordination – or perhaps even integration – of a range of support across multiple organisations. Conventional bilateral contracting approaches are not well suited to this. Practice is moving towards more relational, and more multilateral, forms of contracting. Where are the examples of such networks working effectively? How can a practice of measuring outcomes foster a learning environment for adaptive improvement? How can effort engage with the strengths and agency of citizens?