own) in order to develop SIB concepts and assess their impact. In Colombia, for example, the development of data banks resulted in data-driven decision-making.

5. Market Capacity — this includes investor willingness to take risks and to participate in the social investment process, access to expertise to design the SIB concept and the results evaluation system, and the availability of contractors to implement social impact bonds.

HOW SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS ARE SIMILAR

Social impact bonds (SIBs) emerged as a contractual mechanism at the junction of social investments and governmental social development programs. The original UK program, which laid the foundation for similar projects on a global scale, was based on the principles of long-term financing, regular monitoring of interim results, and the development of new tools for evaluating the social effect.

The British experience demonstrated the importance of having two additional participants within the project framework: the investor, the government, and the contractor benefit from the involvement of financial and expert mediators. The first type of mediator is concerned with coordinating transactions and managing contractual obligations. The second type of mediator reviews the project design, costs, and offers a social impact research toolkit.

The US experience solidified the understanding of SIBs as a tool within impact investing, whose organizational structure facilitated the development of more efficient social interventions and assessed their impact. It also demonstrated that large investors can offset the increased risks of participating in SIBs by economies of scale. Canada developed a format consisting of a conglomerate of investors, which allowed risk and expertise to be shared.

Negative experiences mainly stem from a failure to comply with the DREAM criteria (Demand from government, Regulatory framework, Economic and political context, Availability of data, Market capacity). For example, Portugal’s institutional environment led to SIBs duplicating existing community development funds. Canada’s experience was not successful because the stakeholder engagement scheme combined the roles of project operator and impact evaluator. The Danish experience was not extensive enough to build a results evaluation scheme, which in the context of roles mixed between the provider, project operator and evaluator, undermined project sustainability.

Investors need social impact bonds as an opportunity to enter the social investment sector at a relatively low cost. For the state, this type of project represents an option to outsource the social function and mitigate political risks in the event of failure. The market as a whole receives a new contractual mechanism and innovative impact assessment tools. The public benefits from improvements in a particular aspect of the social situation. And in general, all this means that such a tool is worth at least studying in more detail.

REFERENCES

1. Participants in social impact bonds. (2021). VEB.RF. (in Russ.).

2. A guide to Social Impact Bonds. (2017, September 26). Government of the UK.

3. A. P. (2013, May 10). The Peterborough principles. The Economist.

4. Andersen, M. M., Dilling-Hansen, R., & Hansen, A. V. (2020). Expanding the Concept of Social Impact Bonds. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1–18. doi:10.1080/19420676.2020.1806100

5. Davies, R. (2014, August). Social impact bonds. Private finance that generates social returns. European Parliamentary Research Service.

6. Deloitte, MaRS Centre for Impact Investing. (2013). Social Impact Bonds in Canada: Investor insights. Deloitte.

7. Ferreira, F. S. V. (2020). Social Impact Bonds: The Portuguese Case.

8. First US Social Impact Bond Financed by Goldman Sachs. (2020, May). Goldman Sachs.

9. Fraboul, A. (2020, February 4). BNP Paribas and the European Investment Fund launch a €10 million fund to co-invest in Social Impact Bonds ("SIB") in the European Union. BNP Paribas.

10. From potential to action: Bringing social impact bonds to the US. (2012, May 1). McKinsey & Company.

11. Guidance on developing a Social Impact Bond. (2017). The Centre for Social Impact Bonds. Retrieved April 22, 2022.

12. Koekoek, R. (2016, October). World's first binational Social Impact Bond fosters Dutch-German collaboration. Medium.

13. Moodie, A. (2013, January 20). British social impact investing has left the US playing catch-up. The Guardian.

14. Ronicle, J., & Strid, А. А. (2021, January). Social Impact Bonds in Latin America. IDB Lab's Pioneering Work in the Region Lessons Learnt. American Development Bank.

15. Social Impact Bonds: how private finance can help transform public outcomes. (2016, September 11). Centre for Public Impact. A BCG Foundation.

16. Urban Institute. (2020). «What Role do Intermediaries Play in Pay for Success?» Urban Institute.

17. Warner, M. E. (2013). Private finance for public goods: social impact bonds. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 16(4), 303–319 doi:10.1080/17487870.2013.835727.

18. Weller, A., and E. R. G. Pedersen. (2018). Pay for Success Literature Review: A PreCare Report. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.

Школа Будущего. Есть ли в ней место для развития soft skills?

Зоя Талицкая

DOI 10.55140/2782-5817-2022-2-2-40-51

Личные и социальные качества и навыки, так называемые soft skills, все чаще звучат в публичном поле и становятся предметом исследований. Однако в школьном и вузовском образовании фокус все еще остается на знаниях. Будет ли в Школе Будущего развитию «мягких навыков» придаваться не меньше значения, чем предметному обучению? Мы начинаем цикл публикаций, посвященных моделям Школы Будущего. И наш первый разговор — о роли школы в развитии «мягких навыков» у детей.

Зоя Талицкая

Эксперт Фонда развития медиапроектов и социальных программ Gladway

ОТ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ СРЕДИ ИНЖЕНЕРОВ ДО СОТРУДНИКОВ GOOGLE

Уже довольно давно ученые выяснили, что глубокие знания и тем более хорошие оценки в школе и университете совсем не обязательно трансформируются в жизненный и карьерный успех человека. Например, Американская Ассоциация Софт Скиллс (National Soft Skills Association) рассказывает о результатах исследования среди нескольких тысяч американских инженеров, проведенного более ста лет назад — в 1918 году. Уже тогда около 85 % инженеров назвали персональные (личные) качества самым важным фактором, влияющим на успех в карьере инженера — по сравнению с 15 %, которые указали на технические знания и навыки (Mann, 1918).

Среди гораздо более свежих результатов — информация от компании Google, которая проанализировала данные о найме, карьерном росте и увольнении своих сотрудников с 1998 по 2013 годы. Результат анализа показал, что знания и навыки в технической области стоят на последнем месте среди восьми самых