Search results

This study investigates barriers to social impact bond (SIB) implementation through a review of academic and gray literature. A SIB is a type of public policy instrument that leverages payment for performance (P4P), contracting together with private investments in the delivery of welfare programs. Outcome-based contracts, such as SIBs, are gaining attraction for public service providers in developed countries, but research regarding their implementation remains underexplored both empirically and theoretically.

A literature review is conducted in which two types of documents are included: (1) empirical research papers and (2) evaluations of completed SIB projects. In total, 43 documents have been investigated. The study engages in a comparative design where insights across sectors (healthcare, social care and employment/education), are leveraged. The insights rest on evidence from the UK and US.

The investigation reveals five types of barriers to SIB implementation related to: (1) the SIB model, (2) organizational competencies, (3) data infrastructure, (4) stakeholder engagement and (5) the institutional context. The study discusses ways of managing these barriers and develops a conceptual framework for empirically investigating SIB implementation.

This study is the first academic paper to systematically assess insights regarding the implementation of SIBs. Also, the article proposes a conceptual framework for investigating SIB implementation.

This paper offers a bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on social finance. It provides an overview of the research field by identifying gaps in the existing academic literature and presenting future research directions.

The study uses co-word analysis and visualization mapping techniques.

This study's findings show that the social finance research field comprises five main research clusters and four main research hotspots—impact investing, social entrepreneurship, social impact bonds, and social innovation—which represent the core of this research domain. The authors also identify the researchers and the research institutions that have contributed to the development of social finance. In addition, emerging research areas are mapped and discussed.

Compared with most previous literature reviews, this work provides a more complete and objective analysis of the entire social finance landscape by revealing the trends and evolving dynamics that characterize its development. To this end, clear terminological boundaries have not yet been established in social finance. The field appears immature because only a few researchers have contributed to it, and papers have yet to be published by top finance journals. Finally, the findings of this research provide directions for future studies.