Valuing small moves amidst institutional constraints

(Source: Official webpage of Market Lab)

Meanwhile, exposure to international experiences also played a part in providing food for thought to stimulate ideas for change. Before the Market Lab ever started, attention of the lab fellows has been drawn to the international scene, as some of them located innovative overseas cases on market service on the internet to fulfill the fellowship application requirement. In the course of the Market Lab, six lab fellows had the opportunity to go to a sponsored study tour to Korea to learn about its innovative practices on market service. Such exposure was useful for stimulating a vision for change that could go beyond local imagination.

Nonetheless, the insight for change generated from the Market Lab process did not boost theirconfidencein bringing about actual changeto alleviatecurrent problems ofmarket service. Institutional constraints to improving the prevalent problems were clearly felt under the current service system.

Valuing small moves amidst institutional constraints

Beyond market service, Table 4 indicates that the sense of competence of respondents in mobilizing resources for tackling social problems and effecting actual social improvements did not have significant change after the Market Lab process. None of the items in

Table 4 indicates significant change among the respondents after the Market Lab.

Table 4

No.

Rating increased

Rating decreased No change Total Z p

8 I am capable to help improve the status quo of the society. 6 5 8 19 -0.05 0.96

9 I am capable to help solving social problems. 4 4 11 19 -0.30 0.76

10 I find my actions have chance to make concrete impact. 8 3 8 19 -1.71 0.09

12 I have resourc solving social es pr to help oblems. 9 4 6 19 -1.86 0.06

In focus groups and individual interviews, the informants concurred with the before-andafter test findings that they were not sure of their ability to effect actual changes to improve the social situation, despite enhanced insights for the possibilitiesof change within the system. The institutionalconstraints they encountered in theMarket Lab process reminded them thatchange making in rule-driven bureaucracy has never been an easy mission. One instance in which the lab participants clearly felt the administrative constraint was the premature termination of a prototype testing upon discovery that they could not get through some licensing regulations. The lab fellows expressed their frustration at the setback in the focus groups. “We couldn’t use the empty store…Near the time of setup ….. We thought that the empty store could be used for a month, and we could run it beyond the prototype week…. I thought business start-up was allowed for the young people there. But what came out? It (the plan) was banned, because of some fundamental problems…the problem of rental contract. ” (Lab fellow H, focus group)

Frustration of the lab fellows was compounded by their inability to conceive the rationale behind the regulations that contributed to failure of the prototype testing. They expected some regulatory flexibility in testing new ways to handle old problems, when the government claimed to support innovative practices in solving community problems. “These things are supposed to be temporary, so they should have more tolerance, or they could flexibly adjust…we are talking about experiments. In the very beginning, we had said we were doing experiments. Experiments are probably something new, not the things they normally have. ” (Lab fellow C, focus group) “We wanted to do many things, but were banned. Don’t know why our ‘living room ’ had to be fenced with rope. I don’t think it had to be... Not sure if that was due to management of rented venues or other things... We had a call time (for events in ‘living room ’). Before the call time, the old ladies were waiting near the entrance. Wasn’t that funny? The living room was supposed to be free to use. Why wait for the living room to open?”(Lab fellow H, focus group)

However, the frustrating experience from institutional constraints did not necessarily defeatthelabparticipants’passionforchange-making. Many labfellowshavelearntanattitude of cherishing small and concrete actions they could take, when major structural changes on which they could not have direct influence were not achieved overnight. “Truly I don’t think we should ‘wait for things to happen’…. Actually I can start myself, even if there are only a few people, no problem. If it is right and I can make it, naturally it will attract people to join...Changes don’t happen overnight, but at least I have done something. ” (Lab fellow D, focus group) “Quite often I thought, ‘social problems are very big and structural, what can we do? How can I possibly achieve something alone?’ But I don’t think so pessimistically (now). Maybe something small in the start. You don’t know how big it can become... Maybe our position, age, occupational rank, cannot influence the big picture. But I don’t think that is a big problem. Something small can be done. By observation, and empathy... discovering (social problems) is already very important.” (Lab fellow E, focus group)