The Big Society – news from Downing Street
Forgive the long post, but I promised to report back on the reception for the Big Society Network at Number Ten.
It was an absolutely fascinating event and helped me start to excavate the concept to see its qualities and flaws.
In his comments on the Big Society, the Prime Minister (who always comes across as personally impressive) considered the questions: what, why and how.
He said that the Big Society was premised on the simple idea that ‘we can all do more’. Sceptics will see this as bland and empty, but I choose to draw from it something more substantive. The idea that the BS is about everyone as an alternative to emphasising, on the one hand, the philanthropic responsibilities of the privileged or, on the other, the social needs or development of the disadvantaged.
Another dimension of this inclusive approach was also emphasised by Lord Wei at last week’s Institute for Government event at which he said that the strength of the Citizen’s Service pilots had lain in bringing together well-off and disadvantaged young people not just to work on projects but as the basis for enduring socially integrated networks in localities.
Towards the end of his short speech – in what almost felt like a throw away line – David Cameron spoke of contributing to society as part of what makes for ‘happy and fulfilled lives’. The BS idea seems then to go beyond a simple aspiration for greater social responsibility to imply an important statement about the good life and the good society. This is akin to the kind of link I have been trying to make in my own work between the somewhat instrumental approach of the 2007 ‘social aspiration gap’ lecture and the broader philosophical inquiry into about human agency and fulfilment in the 21st century enlightenment speech and pamphlet. I very much hope Coalition (and Opposition) politicians will continue to open up these bigger questions.
We were very much back to instrumentality in the PM’s answer to the ‘why’ question. Simply, he argued in a time of austerity we need citizens to fill the gap between social need and the limits of the state. He was careful to emphasise that this is about restructuring and reorienting the state, not just withdrawing it (this is a point Cameroonians always make to distance themselves from alleged Thatcherite social laissez faire). This is, of course, a compelling argument, but this part of the BS story could go further. There is, for example, the case that public services will only be able to give us what we want and achieve social outcomes effectively if citizens are involved as co-producers of those outcomes. There is also an argument about place. Most of us want to live in localities that have a strong and distinctive civic life but too many of us are free riders on those who put the work into local decisions, initiatives and capacity.
The Prime Minister then turned to the how question and this is where I think there are still some quite big problems about clarity and intention. The PM highlighted four examples of ‘how’ to create a Big Society: more Government funding flowing through the third sector; the civil service being a ‘civic service’ which seemed primarily to be about civil servants doing more outreach and volunteering; encouraging more corporate social responsibility; and – linking in the BS Network’s big idea – a single portal through which people can join groups, identify local needs and offer help. (The BS Network is planning a website called ‘your square mile’ to provide online services to social activists and volunteers and hyper local information about opportunities to engage – I have my doubts about this but they are for another time.)
There are several problems with the PM’s list: first, the conflation of a particular form of governance with civic activism and social responsibility. Earlier this week we heard that the new NHS arrangements are part of the Big Society as the GP consortia that buy contracting services from the private sector may be social enterprises. But to argue that the governance form of these consortia is significant in itself is like claiming that all state employees are motivated by something called the public service ethos. Some are and some aren’t. It is what people do and what drives them, rather than the sector they are in, that matters. Michael Gove’s free schools are often described as symbols of the Big Society but if these schools are set up in order to allow middle class or religious groups to segregate themselves or if these schools choose to have little or no relationship to the surrounding community, then they will make society less ‘big’.
Second, the PM’s reference to encouraging CSR gives ammunition to those who see the BS as empty rhetoric. Lots of people (many of them rather tedious) have been banging on about CSR for years and years. But the credibility of CSR practice has, if anything, been damaged as we have watched banks and oil companies with great CSR programmes screw up our lives and the environment with their mainstream business activities. By all means talk about CSR but only if we have a more robust account of what it is and what kinds of expectations we are setting (especially if the overall policy objective is to reduce business regulation).
Third, throwing so many different things together does play into the danger I mentioned yesterday that the Big Society is simply a tin of gloss paint which can be slapped onto almost any Government initiative to make it look better while leaving the working parts and social impact unchanged. From the pre-publicity I am seeing for Tory Party fringe conference events, it seems almost every special interest group is finding a Big Society angle to its work. How long will it be before Private Eye has a ‘Big Society Balls’ column I wonder?
A much clearer account is needed of what the core criteria are for deciding whether activity can usefully be put under the BS banner. What is it about intentions, methods and outcomes that let us know whether an activity or policy contributes to the Big Society?
Economists have a phrase to describe a sloppy theory that it is ‘not even good enough to be wrong’. For the concept of the Big Society to be useful it must be possible to say that something is not part of the BS and to use the idea to guide significant political and administrative decisions. The Big Society has a lot of potential but, media and public scepticism being what it is, the Coalition does not have long to show that it is an idea with substance, edge and concrete form.
As an overall scorecard I would give BS ‘fair to good’ as a big idea. As a set of policy proposals – such as the Big Society Bank, national citizens service, your square mile – I would say ‘has promise but must show delivery’. But it is as a way of judging or shaping mainstream policies across Government where I think lies the greatest potential and also the greatest current weaknesses and dangers of the Big Society.
Comments
18 Comments on The Big Society – news from Downing Street
-
Jeff Mowatt on
Wed, 14th Jul 2010 4:44 pm
-
Julian Dobson on
Wed, 14th Jul 2010 6:10 pm
-
David Wilcox on
Wed, 14th Jul 2010 7:16 pm
-
Jeff Mowatt on
Wed, 14th Jul 2010 7:43 pm
-
John Popham on
Wed, 14th Jul 2010 7:46 pm
-
Mike on
Thu, 15th Jul 2010 8:08 am
-
Jeff Mowatt on
Thu, 15th Jul 2010 8:42 am
-
Tessy Britton on
Fri, 16th Jul 2010 2:45 pm
-
Jeff Mowatt on
Sat, 17th Jul 2010 12:27 pm
-
A Big Society… and four economy sized societies « Community Links blog on
Mon, 19th Jul 2010 3:31 pm
-
Daniel Snell on
Tue, 20th Jul 2010 11:32 am
-
Exploring The Big Society | OliBarrett.com on
Tue, 20th Jul 2010 9:50 pm
-
Only Marketing Jobs » Exploring the Big Society on
Wed, 21st Jul 2010 4:05 pm
-
Exploring the Big Society « Simon Lewis's Blog on
Wed, 21st Jul 2010 4:24 pm
-
Only Marketing Jobs » Exploring the Big Society on
Wed, 21st Jul 2010 4:25 pm
-
The Daily Networker » Blog Archive » Exploring the Big Society on
Fri, 23rd Jul 2010 9:54 am
-
Exploring the Big Society | UK Marketing Network on
Thu, 5th Aug 2010 11:00 am
-
dingle on
Tue, 10th Aug 2010 3:44 pm
Matthew, It began for us with perhaps a more pragmatic ideal – reforming capitalism for social benefit – with the assertion that people being real had been trumped by numbers which had been imagined.
Hence the conclusion:
“Economics, and indeed human civilization, can only be measured and calibrated in terms of human beings. Everything in economics has to be adjusted for people, first, and abandoning the illusory numerical analyses that inevitably put numbers ahead of people, capitalism ahead of democracy, and degradation ahead of compassion. ”
http://www.p-ced.com/1/about/background/
The ethical position was of an economic model which did not depend on human disposal, and by the same token the environment.
There were several influences, Carl R Rogers and Fritjof Capra being most influential.
“It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around–if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be “Me first, mine first”; rather, “Me, too” is more the order of the day. ”
http://www.p-ced.com/1/about/history/
This is what we’ve deployed in a practical way starting in Siberia and here since 2004 . It may sound as if part of Big Society and yet remains on the margins.
I guess Downing Street receptions tend to reinforce the idea that agendas are set by government. And clearly they are, to the extent that funding and taxation comes from government.
But the interesting thing about the Big Society discourse is precisely the absence of criteria for deciding what is in and what is out. That creates a space in which others can define ‘big society’ (or civil society or a good society) on their own terms and in accordance with what they care about.
It also creates a different dialogue between activity and policy. The essence of the ‘big society’ idea, if we are to take its advocates at their word, is that activity, as chosen and directed by local people, should determine policy and not the other way round. That too creates potential and opportunity – for people to choose how they interpret the ‘big society’ agenda where they live. That’s what we’re trying to explore with the idea of the Big Society in the North, and to judge from the initial response there’s a real appetite for it.
I agree with Julian – Big Society is #bigsociety the tag, not the logo, the approved branding etc. I’ve been working with the Network as socialreporter over the past few weeks, and so seen it from outside and in.
Outside many people are rightly sceptical … is it a mask for cuts, co-option of existing good work and so. Show us it is something different. At the same time, there is an emerging willingness in civil society networks to see this as a tide on which boats old and new can be floated … as well as a few sunk.
From the inside I’ve seen responses to initiatives like Julian’s: instead of concern about someone taking “our” space, it’s been – great, let’s support anyone who wants to create a discussion, event, in their space.
At the same time there does have to be some “product” – not least when the network starts local meetings in the autumn. One idea I’ve floated is that of a store: if this is “invent your own big society”, we need a DIY store to help.
I’ve posed that as a Social Apps Store, using the metaphor of somewhere you can go to get easy-to-use ways of doing things. David Cameron says he wants to turn government on its head, and see policy and action developed bottom up. I think we need to do that with many of the toolkits, publications, event formats developed in recent years with more of an eye to funders than users.
I think the challenge for the network is how to amplify the best of what’s been developed around social action over the past few decades – including that by RSA – while doing more than just aggregate and repackage. The added value might be in adding not just tech, but some of the best open, collaborative, user-friendly approaches that social media has helped us rediscover.
Julian and David,
What you say about this being a spirit of the time, some use the term Zeitgeist, is true enough and perhaps also an argument government attempting to brand or take ownership of it.
There’s another discussion going on now on the subject of DoH plans for ‘social enterprise’ hospitals. Now there’s another example of branding that nobody seems able to agree on.
In the struggle to establish the position of leading authority and discard what we may see as being either too narrow or not coherent enough, we may have overlooked the possibility that someone comes along and disards all existing interpretations to establishes something that none of us see as social.
This is a really good post, and, as might be expected, I agree with everything Julian and David are saying too.
I particularly like David’s ideas about an “app store” and tool-kits. Now, more than ever, we must be careful not to re-invent wheels and duplicate efforts. There are plenty of examples of what works out there, we need to make sure that everyone knows about them.
As a starter, I offer the DC10plus Product Catalogue, which brings together a number of powerful examples of what works http://www.dc10plus.net/news-and-events/news/News16727
Its fascinating to see social commentators scrabbling to get on board this phantom voyage to nowhere.
We know perfectly well that the key issue in improving trust and reducing anti-social behaviour is reducing inequality – and that this Government is already rowing energetically in the wrong direction (according to IFS). Encouraging ‘social entrepreneurs, promoting doctors co-ops and setting new online gizmos while hacking away at the welfare state will do little to achieve happy and fulfilled lives – but it will give the commentators plenty to chunter on about while ignoring the core issue.
Apps have their value, sure enough. As a software developer, revenue from an application funds our work.
A little while ago I came up on radar at Stanford where I was invited to describe how advocacy for affordable broadband deployment argued the case for social and economic return.
https://www.stanford.edu/group/sdg/cgi-bin/dev/liber/?q=node/239
I also related there how the proof of concept for a social purpose model had been established in Russia, with the Tomsk Regional Initiative, which would today comply with what Muhammad Yunus describes as Social Business:.
“a non-loss, non-dividend company dedicated to meeting social needs; such as ensuring affordable healthcare for all, promoting better nutrition for children, creating employment for the unemployed, moving towards a safer environment, enhancing the process of women empowerment and providing safe drinking water.”
The problem is, while a toolkit has value, there are those whose existence depends on being anti-social business. These are the traffickers, human rights violators and despots and sooner or later you find doing social good cannot skirt around and avoid these most difficult obstacles.
Hi Matthew/all
We have started a group over on the RSA Fellowship ning to continue this fascinating conversation.
Tessy, I’d like very much to participate in another group at least. The subject of profit for a purpose describes our own efforts and business model.
[...] Taylor says the RSA could be called the think tank for the Big Society so closely are the visions aligned. So could [...]
Matthew here’s my post following our discussion http://arrivalworldwide.blogspot.com/2010/07/launch-of-big-society-network-and-the.html
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew [...]
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew says: As an overall scorecard I would give BS ‘fair to [...]
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew says: As an overall scorecard I would give BS ‘fair [...]
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew says: As an overall scorecard I would give BS ‘fair [...]
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew says; “As an overall scorecard I would give BS [...]
[...] mentions Matthew Taylor’s work, leading the RSA. This post in particular is worth highlighting, in which Matthew says: As an overall scorecard I would give BS [...]
this national service plan is pointless.
here is a short spoof taking the piss out of this topic,
http://www.worldbytes.org/the-big-society-in-action/
ironically it was made by teenage volunteers at this film charity in London.
enjoy
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.