Citizenship politics, citizenship economics
It boils down to this: policy and politics must start from the question of citizenship. This has been the core assertion running through my annual lectures, through this blog and through the strategy for the RSA. I am more and more convinced that this idea is the best basis for an intelligent, powerful, and urgently necessary debate about the choices society faces. But given that the demands of my job rule out finding the time and focus to write a book or even an extended pamphlet, how can I get this idea to the centre of current debate?
To recap – citizenship politics starts from the question ‘who do we need to be to create the kind of future we say we want’? When we look at this question we see a gap – what I have inelegantly called ‘the social aspiration gap’ – between our collective aspirations and our current trajectory.
This gap has three dimensions; three ways in which tomorrow’s citizens need, in aggregate, to be different to today’s. We need to be more engaged. It is only through mature engagement that we either give permission to our leaders to make right and responsible decisions for the long term and for the interests of all citizens, or that we accept that social progress rests, at least in part, on the decisions we make about our own lives.
We need to be more self reliant. We cannot help those who most need help, nor can we find fair and workable solutions to shared global and national challenges (such as climate change and international development) unless as many of us as possible, for as much of our lives as possible, meet our own needs as individuals and groups.
And we need to be pro-social, that is to say we need to behave in ways which strengthen the fabric of society and in particular the ties of reciprocity which underlie what David Halpern has recently called ‘the hidden wealth of nations’.
Importantly, citizenship politics has both a utilitarian and a normative rationale. The utilitarian case – made on grounds of economy, environment or mental well being – is that we simply cannot go on living like this. Debt (whether personal, corporate or public) is a powerful symbol of the unsustainable nature of contemporary lifestyles.
The normative case, which harkens back to the enlightenment origins of the RSA, is that to fulfil our potential as human begins we should be full members of society; which means we are engaged, self reliant and altruistic people.
The question for citizenship politics is this: ‘what decisions and what type of decision-making can best enable people to be the citizens they need to be to create the future to which we aspire?’
In answering this question there is plenty of scope for differences between left and right, concerning, for example, the role of the state and the importance of social equality. But both left and right should start, not from second order questions such as how can we maximise family income or economic growth, or even how can we achieve more equality, but with the first order question of future citizenship.
I have been inspired to return to these issues by hearing the economist and commentator John Kay speak at the Progressive Governance Conference in London this morning.
In a brilliant intervention he urged people to understand exactly what we should mean by economic growth. This, he said, is the process by which technological innovation and investment in physical and human capital create new choices for individuals and societies. But – and this is where the power of the argument lies – the route to more choices (for which we might more grandly say ‘freedom’ or ‘fulfilment’) lies not in ‘materialism’ – the producing and buying of more stuff – but in ‘lifestyle’. Quite apart from the way the crazed pursuit of more stuff has left us all indebted and our economy enfeebled, in aggregate as a society, what extra choices has most of the materialism of the last two decades really brought us?
Instead, says Kay, if we want to think about how growth creates choice take the example of food. The quality of the food most people eat in this country has improved dramatically in the last two decades. But not because we are eating more (obesity is generally a disease of the poor not the middle class) but because we spend more on better quality food. Improvements in the way we cook, in our knowledge, and our skills (stretching from Jamie Oliver to our own culinary efforts), have expanded the market and given us new choices and pleasures without relying on us consuming more resources. Kay argues that we could develop a similar model of lifestyle-enhancing economic growth in almost all areas of the economy.
This seems to me to form the basis for adding citizenship economics to citizenship politics. That is to say, an economics which starts from the idea that growth is there to enable and enhance fuller citizenship not simply to consume more stuff. The question ‘what kind of economy are we trying to grow’ is inextricably linked to the question ‘what kinds of people do we want and need to be’.
And, of course, all these questions require us to have a sophisticated understanding of how human beings work – which is why the RSA spends so much time discussing what neuroscience, behavioural sciences and the study of evolution tell us about what makes us tick as human beings.
We need a new paradigm to replace the failed and contradictory combination of unfettered markets, social individualism, overbearing statism, political triangulation and technological determinism that have been the key features of the last two decades.
That model is to be found in citizenship politics and citizenship economics.
What can I do to convince people?
Comments
10 Comments on Citizenship politics, citizenship economics
-
oldandrew on
Fri, 19th Feb 2010 2:32 pm
-
matthew taylor on
Fri, 19th Feb 2010 3:09 pm
-
Daniel Snell on
Fri, 19th Feb 2010 3:39 pm
-
carl allen on
Fri, 19th Feb 2010 8:32 pm
-
David Wilcox on
Sun, 21st Feb 2010 9:23 am
-
Tessy Britton on
Sun, 21st Feb 2010 2:19 pm
-
Katy T on
Sun, 21st Feb 2010 7:33 pm
-
DaveGorman on
Sun, 21st Feb 2010 10:45 pm
-
matthew taylor on
Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 6:51 pm
-
oldandrew on
Sun, 28th Feb 2010 4:12 pm
Do we actually get to decide what type of people will create the future?
Of course. We do. But representative democracy needs to be enhanced by participative and deliberate forms. Places where we confront the often highly contradictory nature of individual and collective opinions and get to explore issues in depth. You know, Andrew, if you think about it you might even agree with me on some of this!
Hello Matthew,
apologies again for being absent for so long. hello. just talking about this very issue. good management, project management or plain old planning in general always starts with the agreed or desired end result (s) and works backwards from there.
what sort of society or individuals do we want is a v important question to ask. then we should ask what sort of education we want to provide in order to create those sorts of citizens. rather than the out dated, failing system we currently have.
I’m with Matthew here oldandrew. let’s think about what society we want and what citizens we want. otherwise, the alternative is unconscious – suck it and see. or let circumstances and fate or the market decide.
A great answer to a burning question, Matthew.
But what is the solution or sequence of events needed before we get a culture of citizenship politics and citizenship economics?
Historically, events such as mass pestilence, revolution, war,new lands, famine or natural disaster have been the solution or sequence of events.
Will it take a prolonged civil uprising driven by Third Sector campaigners and informed by social media?
Perhaps Mr Letwin may have some inkling of the future in his party’s statement of what charities must not do!
Thanks Matthew for another excellent post, which brings a wealth of external intelligence and personal analyis to a sharp focus on what sort of citizens we (and “they”) need to be for a resilient, sustainable future.
You ask “What can I do to convince people?” … wishing you had time for a book or a pamphlet, presumably aimed at policy people. But would such a book, however excellent, be the best way to make a difference, and best use of time?
How about working with the grain of your model, and looking to change from the individual and collective, as well as the policy thinker.
And can we all help? How about turning things around, and asking “What can we (RSA staff and Fellows) do to help them understand the benefits of change?” And how can a chief executive best start and support that process? That could be far more powerful, and hopefully less time-consuming.
Over on the Fellowship site there’s an interesting discussion in a group and blog post about the idea of an Amplified Fellow, as a model of someone who can use a range of media (being transliterate) to be more effective in their personal and working life. It is inspired by work in Leicester where Sue Thomas and her team are working with a group of citizens to explore what this means in practice.
(Disclosure: I’ll be helping the Leicester group consolidate their thinking, and look at how to inspire groups in other towns).
So … what would it be like to be the sort of admirable (and Amplified) citizen-Fellow that you outline: engaged, self-reliant, pro-social? I’m sure we could contribute a lot of ideas from our experience and daily lives. We could fill out the model you offer in terms that could be widely understood. (Part of the challenge would be – how can we engage a whole range of “them”, beyond the policy world).
What then would it like for, say, a group of citizens in the Peterborough, where RSA has a project? How could RSA support that citizen-learning process … develop the model … help the idea and practice spread … and help citizens tell their own stories.
I think you are absolutely right that the challenge lies in a new approach to citizenship. There is a complementary challenge to policy makers: don’t give yourself the hard task of writing the book. Help the citizens do it for you. Authorship 2.0.
Although I support wholeheartedly in citizenship and participation and in particular your focus on understanding human beings, I don’t think that the conditions are necessarily universally right at the moment – the systems and methods are largely so dull and exhaustive that they invite only the dedicated or politically passionate to get involved.
We can also be frequently left talking about empowerment as though it involved some sort of social policy wizardry – for mass effect…. rather than perhaps more artful and subtle gardening know how, which might involve nurturing small but interesting ideas and groups of people.
We might choose to live more deliberately in the way you describe, favouring participation, new forms of economic survival and collectivism …. ‘the citizens we need to be to create the future to which we aspire’ (and I see many people who are) … but without the right conditions and insufficient companionship could easily end up as ‘all dressed up with nowhere to go’…
Wholeheartedly concur with the need for a sophisticated understanding of humans and their collective values, aspirations and motivations for this knowledge is quite rightly what enriches Economics with the ability to genuinely improve peoples lives and close what you have termed “the social aspiration gap”. Funny how I always felt the need to justify combining Economics and Sociology as disciplines to study.
The health of our economy demands us to invest in it and without a switch away from consumer expenditure towards investment, GNP increases will be elusive. Wouldn’t it be desirable to direct our investments towards ethical investment funds?. Might we then develop a model of citizenship economics that encourages collective investments towards those activities that have some degree of ethical and altruistic considerations – a model that adequately quantifies the full social benefits and returns of these types of economic endeavours.
Its difficult though distinguishing between what is lifestyle enhancing and what is simply more materialism – I’m deciding whether to buy a smart phone, but can’t conclude if I really need it or if it would improve the quality of my life.
Would echo Daniel on Education through which we can encourage the development of engaged, altruistic citizens. Also worth mentioning is the need for good role models in Politics. Untold damage has being done to the relationship between the citizens of this country and the Political state because of a few greedy, dishonest, self-serving and (let’s not forget) misleading MPs. Have you considered standing for election Matthew?
Should I buy the phone? If it doesn’t improve the quality of my life maybe it will improve the quality of those who have urged me to buy one. Does that count as altruistic reasoning?. I’ve even been given the money to buy one – but can’t help feel like I’m choking on it.
Isn’t this where change should begin, from all our individual trivial decisions on how we allocate scarce resources.
Hi Matthew,
I agree with others, another excellent post and crystallized a few things for me. I consume alot of government papers and policy material, and I think that at least on paper, governments do try and change the nature of consumption and improve choices in alot of areas.
But, there are always contradictions and some good things are overwhelmed by some other, not so good things. Secondly, we in government never manage to keep up. In my own area, as we tackle the need to recyle, the waste and impact of waste rises; as we begin to tackle climate change, along comes the prospect of low level space flight on a mass scale or other new opportunites to consume; as we begin to deal with nanotec, along comes synthetic biology.
A bigger problem though in my view, is the lack of a coherent, integrated, inspiring vision. I’ve always felt that the, as you say, second order questions about incremental growth of 3% and how it achieve it, or the apparent zero zum game of chasing competitiveness, don’t inspire people.
Some of your thinking (brought down to earth a little!) does potentially do that.
How could you persuade? Take the general principles of each element, don’t talk about old dead guys (Mill, enlightenment etc- don’t get me wrong, Mill is a hero!), but explain how application of these ideas would improve lives- generate practical examples, backed up with (presumably continental) examples of such sutff in practice.
And finally, to persuade, show people how this can be done within an effective framework, without killing off innovation and stultifying everyone with government-led strategies, regulation or taxes.
Thanks for a some great comments. I followed David’s links to Amplified Citizens and immediately worried if I am tech savvy enough to be one! Tessy I agree that this has to be a politics about the small and subtle as well as the big and systemic. Daniel, when it comes to education my argument (cover your ears Andrew) is that schools should be intelligent institutions in which everyone feels like a citizen. Katy the phone thing is a big dilemma. An easier case is transport where if the goal of policy had been transport choices for the many not flashier cars for teh few we would have a lot more freedom today. And Dave you are of course right that I have to start to put all this in more concrete and accessible ways. Something I have I’m afraid I have failed to do with today’s follow up
I still have major problems with this. We are looking at the vision of society first and then the people we need to create it. This is making people the means not the ends.
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.