This article discusses the distribution of projects financed by the Portugal Inovação Social programme. Two-part models (ordinary least squares and probit) and count models (negative binomial models) have been used for analysing several determinants suggested by various theories of funding allocation. The results showed that municipalities with stronger dynamics for the creation of small and medium-sized companies are Portuguese spaces with a larger number of funded projects and with greater funding from this initiative. Age (young people) and level of education (college graduates) have been found to be factors that determine the number of funded projects. There are also positive incentives for project financing arising from a greater proportion of college graduates in the municipality and from a business dynamic led by a greater number of small- and medium-sized companies. The population density and the percentage of women allowed a more complex discussion about the estimated effects in the studied dimensions. This study proves the existence of local and endogenous characteristics that explain the heterogenous pattern of social innovation across Portuguese municipalities, which demands a proper design of policies toward a more balanced distribution.
AbrahamD. J., IrvingR. W., & ManloveD. F. (2007). Two algorithms for the student-project allocation problem. Journal of Discrete Algorithms, 5(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jda.2006.03.006
2.
AlecchiB. E. A., & Radović-MarkovićM. (2016). Women and entrepreneurship: Female durability, persistence and intuition at work. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315546926
3.
AlmeidaF., & SantosF. (2017). Portugal Inovação Social: Na encruzilhada dos tempos. Cooperativismo e Economía Social, 39, 443–462.
4.
ApataO., BarrettA., BlumbergY., CameronH., MabryK., & PayanoE. (2022). Building accelerators to serve Black and Hispanic community entrepreneurs. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4064297
5.
AraujoM. C., FerreiraF. H., LanjouwP., & ÖzlerB. (2006). Local inequality and project choice: Theory and evidence from Ecuador [Policy Research Working Paper, No. 3997]. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9289
6.
ArmengolE., & García-CerdañaÀ. (2023). Discovering abstentionist profiles in 2015 Catalan elections. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 15861–15874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03123-x
7.
AudretschD., EichlerG., & SchwarzE. (2022). Emerging needs of social innovators and social innovation ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18, 217–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00789-9
8.
BalartP. (2021). Semiorder preferences and price-oriented buyers in a Hotelling model. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 188, 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.05.015
9.
BelottiF., DebP., ManningW., & NortonE. (2015). Twopm: Two-part models. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 15(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500102
10.
BernardinoS., & SantosJ. F. (2017). Local development through social and territorial innovation: An exploratory case study,CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 90, 159–187.
11.
BiscioneA., BoccanfusoD., CarusoR., & de FeliceA. (2022). The innovation gender gap in transition countries. Economia Politica, 39, 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-021-00238-4
12.
BittencourtB., FigueiróP., & SchutelS. (2017). The impact of social innovation: Benefits and opportunities from Brazilian social business. Espacios, 38(26), 7–17.
13.
BockB. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation: A turn towards endogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(4), 552–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12119
14.
BourdinS., & TaiJ. (2021). Abstentionist voting—Between disengagement and protestation in neglected areas: A spatial analysis of the Paris metropolis. International Regional Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/01600 176211034131
15.
BowerJ. (2018). Resource allocation theory. In AugierM. & TeeceD. J. (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_677
16.
BromileyP. (2009). A prospect theory model of resource allocation. Decision Analysis, 6(3), 124–138.
17.
CarvalhoJ. (2013). Social innovation and entrepreneurship—The case of Porto region [Working Paper]. https://repositorio.ismai.pt/bitstream/10400.24/545/1/Social%20Innovation%20and%20Entrepreneurship.pdf
18.
CopusA., PerjoL., BerlinaA., JungsbergL., RandallL., & SigurjónsdóttirH. (2017). Social innovation in local development: Lessons from the Nordic countries and Scotland [Nordregio Working Paper 2017:2]. https://www.aeidl.eu/images/stories/pdf/nordregio.pdf
19.
de Fatima FerreiroM., SousaC., SheikhF.A., & NovikovaM. (2023). Social innovation and rural territories: Exploring invisible contexts and actors in Portugal and India. Journal of Rural Studies, 99, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.013
20.
EdgeworthF. (1881). Mathematical Psychics: Um Ensaio sobre a Aplicação da Matemática às Ciências Morais.
21.
EngineeringD. (1962). Isoquants and investment decisions: Part II. The Engineering Economist, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00137916208928653
22.
FamoyeF. (2005). Count data modeling: Choice between generalized Poisson model and negative binomial model. Journal of Applied Statistical Science, 14, 99–106.
23.
FaustinoI., MaiaK., GomesM. R., MouraoP., & AraujoE. (2022). Decomposing wage differences in Brazilian regions: A revised insight about traditional discrimination. International Journal of Social Economics. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-09-2021-0569
24.
FerreiroM., SousaC., SheikhF., & NovikovaM. (2023). Social innovation and rural territories: Exploring invisible contexts and actors in Portugal and India. Journal of Rural Studies, 99, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.013
25.
GezesM. (2012). L’innovation sociale en Europe, politiques européennes et pratiques de l’Innovation Sociale dans trois états members. Les Repères de l’Avise/Questions européennes No. 5.
26.
GuoW. C., LaiF. C., & ZengD. Z. (2015). A Hotelling model with product- ion. Mathematical Social Sciences, 73, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2014.11.005
IsmailiA. (2019). The complexity of student-project-resource matching—Allocation problems. arXivar:1808.08813. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.08813
29.
JauhoM., & HelénI. (2022). Citizenship by vitality: Rethinking the concept of health citizenship. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2022.2057561
30.
JohannissonB. (2006). Community entrepreneurs: Networking for local development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985628900000002
31.
KanuriS., & MalhotraD. K. (2021). Evaluating the performance of world allocation funds. The Journal of Wealth Management. https://doi.org/10.3905/jwm.2021.1.158
32.
LabiancaM. (2016). From technological to social innovation: Objectives, actors, and projects of the European rural development program (2007–2013) in the Puglia region. Norois, 241, 49–65.
33.
LaviA. H., & YanivE. (2023). The effect of entrepreneur attributes on investment evaluations in pitch competitions. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 32(1), 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557231160325
34.
LedroitV. (2021). Le programme pour l’emploi et l’innovation sociale—EaSI. Toute L’Europe/Comprendre l’Europe. https://www.touteleurope.eu/l-europe-et-moi/le-programme-pour-l-emploi-et-l-innovation-sociale-easi/
35.
LeontiefW. W. (1946, February). The pure theory of the guaranteed annual wage contract. Journal of Political Economy, 54, 76–79, reprinted in LeontiefW. (1966). Essays in Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 108)–15). International Arts and Sciences Press, Inc..
36.
MacCallumD.; MoulaertF., HillierJ., & HaddockS. V. (Eds.). (2009). Social innovation and territorial development. Ashgate Publishing Company.
37.
Marktest. (2022). Mulheres são maioritárias, exceto em 8 concelhos do país. https://www.marktest.com/wap/a/n/id~2879.aspx
38.
McKeanC. (1977). Working community entrepreneurs. Architects’ Journal, 42, 749–750.
39.
MouraoP. R. (2013). Pork-barrel versus irrelevance effects in Portuguese public spending. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(4), 649–666. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1274
40.
MouraoP. R. (2017). Discussing the spatial dependence and the determinants of the municipal expenses of Portuguese forest sappers’ teams. Journal of Forest Economics, 27, 38–49.
41.
MouraoP. R., & OliveiraA. (2012). Determinantes regionais da Sobrevivência e da mortalidade das Empresas—O Caso Português. Revista Brasileira de Economia de Empresas, 10(2). https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/12604
42.
MouraoP. R., & RetamiroW. (2021). Community development banks (CDB): A bibliometric analysis of the first 2 decades of scientific production. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00592-6
43.
MouraoP., & Schneider LocatelliD. R. (2020). Testing McClelland at the academy: An analysis of entrepreneurial behavioral characteristics. Sustainability, 12(5), 1771.
44.
MuellerS. L. (2004). Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countries and cultures. Journal of developmental entrepreneurship, 9(3), 199–220.
45.
NählinderJ., TillmarM., & WigrenC. (2015). Towards a gender-aware understanding of innovation: a three-dimensional route. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 66–86.
46.
NeumarkD., WallB., & ZhangJ. (2011). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29.
47.
NovikovaM. (2021). Promoting social innovation through neo-endogenous development: The case of the Austrian Region of Mueh-lviertel. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, 59, 7–21.
48.
PORDATA. (2022). Several variables. PORDATA. https://www.pordata.pt/pt
49.
Portugal Inovação Social. (2022). https://inovacaosocial.portugal2020.pt
RueggR. (1987). Allocating funds among projects with variable designs and sizes (Vol. 59, pp. 75)–79). Mathematical Analysis Division, National Bureau Standards.
52.
SantosF. (2021). A importância da continuidade da inovação social no Portugal 2030. Jornal de Negócios. https://www.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/news/importancia-da-continuidade-da-inovacao-social-no-portugal-2030
SwitzerD. (2011). The animated Hotelling model. Journal of Industrial Organization Education, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-5041.1036
55.
UncetaA., LunaÁ., CastroJ., & WintjesR. (2022). Social innovation regime: An integrated approach to measure social innovation. In TerstriepJ. & RehfeldD. (Eds.), The Economics of Social Innovation (pp. 54–72). Routledge.
56.
WestleyF., & McGowanK. (Eds.). (2017). The evolution of social innovation: building resilience through transitions. Edward Elgar Publishing.
57.
WilliamsM. J. (2017). The political economy of unfinished development projects: Corruption, clientelism, or collective choice?American Political Science Review, 111(4), 705–723.
58.
YadavV., UnniJ., NaikR., & DuttaS. (2022). Gender differentials in entrepreneurship: Insights from a multi-method study. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 31(1), 30–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557211069283
