Wildavsky and Majone (1979) famously characterized implementation as guided by the “bundle of dispositions” embodied in any policy initiative. Le Gales and Lascoumes (2005) analyze policies as “instruments” of government. Both imply that outcomes can be influenced – if not determined – by the policy tools provided, without close monitoring, much less direct control. While applied initially to national implementation dynamics, this approach predicts indirect but effective transfer of policy models – and outcomes – across national or organizational borders, central both to the EU’s “soft harmonization” and initiatives encouraging adoption of “best practices.”We revisit these propositions through detailed analysis of implementation in a low-income neighborhood of Istanbul of an income-support system supported by the European Network of Living Labs. Created in 2006 by a decision of the European Union this entity is meant to promote “open innovation networks” that put technology in the hands of citizens. It is the context of such a “living lab” that a Turkish district municipality developed an instrument for social policy. Available to the lowest income households the “support card” is a smart card used for as a vehicle for income support policies. Among the advantages claimed for this instrument are its discretion and flexibility and its role in empowering women. Less publicized is its capacity as a potent instrument for generating and solidifying partisan support as activists for the ruling party assist, and often supplant, municipal civil servants in assessing eligibility, processing applications, and more generally serving as gatekeepers for the program’s benefits. To this end, the paper proceeds in two sections. The first traces the origins and development of “open innovation networks” and considers the type of instrument they are meant to produce and the dispositions embodied in such instruments. The second considers the application of the model to the implementation of a concrete policy instrument, the support card, and to the “bundle of dispositions” that it displays. From this, we draw the conclusion that to understand the transition from instruments to action, we must take a careful look at the actors, and at their own dispositions, as opposed and in addition to those of any policy instrument.