Ask not what the state can do for you ….
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a number of people trying to work out how to respond to the idea of the Big Society. As I said yesterday, the report on Monday of the ACEVO Commission on the Big Society is likely to provide plenty of ammunition for those critical of the implementation of the idea, but this conversation was more at the level of principle.
Essentially the Big Society contains two ideas, one which is traditionally associated with the right and one which is more comfortable to the left. The former comprises a critique of the state, the latter a recognition that people should be expected to act in ways which do not simply avoid harming others but contribute to the public good. A problem for the right is that most evidence suggests civil society tends to be stronger in countries which have a relatively generous welfare state. A problem for the left is that in practice the way public services are organised – at least in England – too rarely creates feelings of empowerment among either staff or the public.
Part of the intellectual terrain over the next few years will therefore be a tussle between Conservatives seeking to show how a withdrawing state has created spaces for community initiatives while a left in search of a new narrative will need to demonstrate it has moved beyond the rampant statism of the Brown years and has credible plans for a strong, efficient and enabling public sector. The interesting thing right now is how weak, and lacking in much more than anecdote, both arguments sound.
But the thing that really stuck me was when someone quoted from the socialist thinker RH Tawney, who said in 1931 of the first Labour Government that ‘it asked too little and promised too much’ (when I checked the quote I found it had been used in a speech last year by David Miliband).
One of the things that David Cameron’s Government has in common with Margaret Thatcher’s is a message that people need to change. For Mrs Thatcher it was that people needed to be independent and enterprising, from Mr Cameron it is that people need to be more responsible and community-minded. In contrast Labour – whose ideology should have at its heart the idea of social citizenship – lacked any such over-arching exhortation. Instead Labour’s message was ‘leave it to us, we will sort it out with policies, plans, targets and tax credits’ – interspersed with occasionally delivering a shrill and populist telling off to anti-social youths or the work-shy.
It is not easy to challenge people to be wise and responsible citizens, especially with a 24 hour media constantly on the lookout for an excuse to accuse politicians of pomposity or hypocrisy (witness this excruciating interview with Francis Maude). But it is an essential task of political leadership and will be vital if the Coalition is to have a positive tale to tell through the coming years of austerity or if Labour is to find a way of connecting with people beyond its Northern heartlands.
Small but perfectly informed
After yesterday’s massive screed of a blog (someone sent me a text saying ‘I read the first half but had to stop when I realised I was losing the will to live’), something shorter and lighter.
I gave a lunchtime talk today to ACEVO (the third sector CEOs’ organisation). When they first asked me they said forty people were coming, then it was nineteen, then twelve and finally eight of us sat down to lamb cutlets or sea bass. Despite the slight collateral damage to the battered Taylor ego (still smarting after being left off the Metro ‘top 6,000 quite intelligent Londoners called Matthew’ list), it was actually quite nice to be in a small group.
I had decided not to make a big speech about 21st century enlightenment but to explore some of the challenges facing the third sector in the long period of austerity ahead. Being in the company of some very impressive leaders I ended up hearing a number of interesting points. One that will stick with me was the charity which sees its major corporate partners not only, or even primarily, as financial donors but as sources of organisational expertise, guidance and support. Rather than seeing the relationship as a way into money, this charity saw the donation as a way into a relationship. This is a thought and indeed an ambition I have had before but it was powerful to hear of it in practice.
Another was a point about collaboration to the effect that the best partnerships often start off being disinterested – just organisations wanting to find out more about, and learn from, each other. It is only later that the opportunities for joint projects and funding bids start to emerge. This contrasts with what has generally been my own experience – shotgun marriages of convenience. It made me think about which third sector organisations and leaders I most admire and whose aims most clearly align with our own, and also realise that I didn’t need to wait for a concrete proposal before suggesting a conversation.
Finally, I also heard about ACEVO’s report on the Big Society, which is being published on Monday. I shan’t break their embargo but from what I was told the report confirms – but this time with proper analysis and evidence – most of the concerns I have been airing on this blog. I hope to write more fully about the report when it is published.
Virgin donations
In Liverpool this morning to speak at the autumn conference of ACEVO (the organisation for third sector CEOs). Preceding me was Jo Barnett, Executive Director of Virgin Money Giving (VMG). This is a new not for profit business set up by Richard Branson with the explicit aim of challenging the dominance of JustGiving. It is a big venture, with VMG having agreed a multi million pound lead sponsorship of the London Marathon for the next five years.
Currently JustGiving has over 90% of the online donations market. It has been a powerful innovation and people see it as a simple and reliable way to raise and give money. This year the RSA gave the Albert Medal for Social innovation to JustGiving co-founder Zarine Kharas. But JG faces two criticisms.
First that it makes a profit and that to do so it charges fees that are too high (5% on donations and gift aid I think)
Second, that it has not been able to increase the share of online giving as a proportion of overall donations to charities (running at only about 2% apparently)
VMG aims to restrict itself to a fee of 2% on donations and nothing on gift aid. It says it will do this by being more efficient and through charging for advertising on sponsor sites.
It will be interesting to see how VMG does. A few years ago I was on the board of the Lottery operating company, Camelot. Richard B was forever criticising Camelot for being profit making and saying that he could do a better not for profit job. But when it came down to it he never persuaded the National Lottery Commission that his case stood up. The Camelot profit is tiny in comparison to the costs of the Lottery and presumably those awarding the franchise were unconvinced that an arm of the Virgin empire could do better.
JustGiving takes a bigger slice of donations than Camelot does of lottery sales so the case for a not for profit makes more sense. Also, it must be good to have some competition; it may make JG more creative and drive down their fees.
Having said which, I’m not sure I would want my donations site plastered with advertisements for Virgin credit cards or whatever.
What won’t convince me is an argument that it is inherently better to have a not for profit company providing this service. It’s not the governance or form of ownership that matters – but the quality and cost of the service.
Why networks make people better
As I thought they might, the ‘why don’t you stop talking about politics and go back to running the RSA’ comments have started appearing. I’m happy to oblige by sharing some fascinating research – sent to me by Dan Jones (thanks, Dan!) on the relationship between altruism and social capital.
My friend and former colleague, Peter Kyle (who was at the other end of the spectrum of Special Advisors to poor old Damian McBride), has kindly offered to send a link to my blog to his members at ACEVO so I’m also hoping this is of interest to third sector leaders
The research – Human prosociality from an evolutionary perspective: variation and correlations at a city-wide scale by David Sloan Wilson, Daniel Tumminelli O’Brien and Artura Sesma – explores what gives rise to what the authors call ‘prosociality’ (which they distinguish from altruism in that the former need not imply any self sacrifice while doing good). The research brings together social capital thinking with the perspectives of behavioural economics and evolutionary psychology to try to understand the context which makes pro-social behaviour a winning strategy for individuals and the human species.
In essence, the team from Binghampton University conclude that the stronger someone’s social networks the more likely they are to behave pro socially. The existence of these networks of support turns out to be more important even than income in determining people’s propensity to act benignly.
Like a lot of social research these findings confirm common sense while also having important implications. It is no surprise that people who feel they have support in their lives are most inclined to want to give back to society. But the research provides new research and a robust explanation at a number of levels (including game theory) for why supportive networks provide the context in which altruism makes sense.
I like the research because it forms a neat bridge between our Social Brain and our Connected Communities research projects. By understanding how we make decisions and how those decisions are governed by social incentives (both explicit and tacit) we can get to appreciate the best context to plant and cultivate the seeds of pro-sociability.
Some of the ways we form impressions about social support are fascinating. The researchers labelled neighbourhoods as socially supportive partly through a method in which addressed envelopes are dropped on the street; the proportion that is picked up and put through the right letter box is taken as a proxy for neighbourliness. It was found that people only had to be shown photographs of these more supportive neighbourhoods to become more inclined to make pro-social choices.
By explaining research like this to communities and by showing them existing patterns of networks (as we intend to in the Connected Communities project) we hope to motivate people to see the development of stronger social networks as a powerful good in itself.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
- RSAMatthew: Matthew's blog: Developing development http://t.co/hhhUGYX1
- RSAMatthew: RSA Xmas Party was huge - my whole life I have been a snobbish git about ceilidh type fun - now I want to dance every night
- RSAMatthew: On my way to RSA Xmas party - I won't stay too long as it spoils the fun to have the boss around
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.