Driving ambition
As David Homewood FRSA describes in this recent RSA Comment piece, the cost of insurance is making car ownership completely unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of young people, something which is bound to be worsening problems of youth unemployment, particularly in rural areas. A few years ago, there was much hope that smart boxes in cars would solve the problem by forcing young people to drive safely and enabling insurers to reduce premiums. But the boxes have neither reduced prices nor changed behaviour sufficiently to make a difference and now only one significant insurer offers a smart box-based deal.
This is a real practical issue affecting the economic prospects and quality of life of younger people. I suspect solutions will involve some combination of technology, economics and behaviour change and if anyone out there fancies funding or collaborating on a research project I’m sure the RSA would be interested.
I can’t quite fit the pieces together but I wonder whether one way forward may be based on younger drivers giving lifts to older passengers? I haven’t got the statistics to hand but my recollection is that young people’s likelihood of having an accident is significantly increased if they have other young people in the car and significantly reduced if they have older passengers. Is there a way of combining young people’s need for cheaper insurance and the offer of free comfortable transport for older people?
If that seems impractical, I was intrigued to read about a system called Bring Buddy which has been developed by design students and DHL. Basically, the system uses social media and GPS to connect people’s movements across cities to parcels which need to be transported. The system is particularly relevant in city centres where pedestrianisation or congestion charging makes on foot or bike delivery much easier than by car or van. My web surfing doesn’t make clear whether Bring Buddy is in operation and, if it is, how it is working, but a system whereby young people’s insurance was dependent on them taking older passengers might work using a similar crowd sourcing methodology.
Perhaps it’s a silly idea but hopefully it will provoke other thoughts.
But I should end with an admission. Although it was David’s Comment which provoked me today, I was going to write about this issue a few months ago when I was trying to get insurance for my older son who passed his test first time last December. My indignation towards insurance companies for the cost he and his mother ended up paying was burning bright for a full two weeks. That was how long it took before he managed to write off the family car! Since the smash, in which no one was injured, he has become a much more careful driver but this underlines that the problem is not just about greedy insurance companies but also the genuine dangers that young people can pose themselves (and other people) when they drive without supervision.
Virtual localism
A little later today I am filming a speech for a virtual conference. I have often been asked to contribute to short films shown at conferences but this is a whole 20 minute speech. Normally when I speak I use just a few notes and the speech evolves to some extent to reflect the feedback I am getting from the audience so I am intrigued as to how it will feel speaking at a camera. The rationale for virtual events is presumably that things are simpler and more convenient than real life. I’m not sure this holds up. The film crew arrived at 9.00 to set up, filming starts at 11.00 and I am booked until 14.00!
The focus of the speech is ’localism’. As is often the case with a speech on a general topic there is a balance between covering points which always come up and trying to say something new. So, I will say that more local control is better for responsiveness and accountability, while also recognising complications like the competing forms of public engagement. The issues of equity and universality have also to be addressed. My view is that central control doesn’t necessarily mean more consistency of local practice than local control but that, in a country as economically unbalanced as the UK, it is important to maintain some redistribution to avoid a feedback loop in which the most privately affluent places also inevitably end up as the ones with the best services, which in turn makes them even more attractive to investment.
The points I want to make which go slightly beyond the usual localism debate are these. There is an ethical argument for localism in that we want people to have the scope to exercise judgement and fulfil their potential to do the right thing. The more devolved the system, the more scope there is for people to make choices adding the ‘hidden wealth’ of creativity, commitment and good intentions to the more tangible resources of service delivery. The counter to this is the need for systems which help to identify bad choices. It was probably the case that the central inspection system overseen by the Audit Commission had, under the previous Government, become too cumbersome and flabby (as had the Commission itself). However the abolition of the Commission will create major gaps in terms of evidence based comparisons. Local authorities will still produce data but, without a body which can contextualise the figures, comparisons could be more misleading than useful. Despite their limited resources it is important that councils and their peak organisations try to fill this evidence gap.
The second argument for localism goes back to the RSA’s concern with the social aspiration gap. The virtue of greater local control lies not only in making authorities and services more responsive but also in developing a more reciprocal conversation between agencies and citizens. The goal here is to blur the boundaries between state and civic action so that social outcomes (for example, improved care for older people, safer streets, better educated children) are explicitly seen as the consequences of the combined efforts of public agencies, individuals and families, and communities. Many RSA projects – like Citizen Power Peterborough – reveal that it is easier for public agencies to sign up to this idea than to carry it into policy and delivery. In part this is because we all like to feel we are in control of our own performance. If it is accepted that effective local governance and service delivery relies upon the positive engagement of citizens, it means public agencies have to live with higher degrees of openness and uncertainty.
Finally, I will argue that localism is about history, culture and economics as well as governance arrangements. Yesterday Radio 4 broadcast an Analysis programme I made about the interest amongst politicians in the Labour Party – and also the other parties – about the recent success of Germany. Visiting Hamburg for the programme it was clear to me that one of the strengths of Germany – ironically the consequence of the post war structure imposed by Britain and other allies – is geographical. As well as strong regions (Lander) it feels like financial, political and cultural resources are much better distributed than in South East dominated England.
Localism relies, among other things, on regions and cities outside the South East being able to hold on to their talent and being able to have an independent relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. One vivid example of the problem comes in the decline of Labour in Scotland, something which has made a significant contribution to the rise of the SNP and- who knows – the eventual move to independence. There are many reasons why Labour declined north of the border but the single biggest was that talented Labour politicians all rushed to Westminster rather than staying at home as figures who could have challenged the dominance of Alex Salmond.
This point enables me to end on an upbeat note and a challenge. The speech is being recorded for a North West audience and this is the region which right now seems the most likely to be able to challenge the dominance of the South East. However, the power of local influence is in the end as much about horizontal collaboration as vertical devolution. Cities, towns and their citizens can be given the scope to shape their own destinies but that promise is only likely to be fulfilled if local leaders built powerful and creative partnerships. Too often over the years I have heard local politicians complain about central control, when their own unwillingness to collaborate has been a much more important constraint on local initiative.
21st century enlightenment
As I said in Monday’s post, the most important and difficult question about human development (in the sense of people in general attaining a ‘higher’ level of capability) may concern whether there are practical, reasonably large scale, examples of such development taking place as an intended consequence of specific interventions.
But before turning to the practical challenge (thanks, by the way, for some useful pointers among the comments on the post), I wanted briefly to explore some of the assumptions underlying the advocacy of human development. As always, I offer little more than a personal and slightly arbitrary path through a small corner of a vast forest of ideas.
The most frequent arguments I have heard for the need for human development can be placed under three distinct headings.
The apocalyptic case is most often made by environmentalists: in essence, the world is doomed unless we change our ways, and such a change requires us to commit to new values and develop new capabilities.
The functional case – made for example by Robert Kegan – suggests changes in the modern world (particularly the human impact of globalisation and the rise of the knowledge economy) require us to develop new capabilities in order for us – as individuals and broader society – to thrive and be resilient. The functional argument has been doubly reinforced in recent times: by the (disputed) finding that rising affluence has not been associated with greater individual or social well-being, and by the growing gap between, on the one hand, social needs and expectations, and on the other, what the state and market can realistically provide (at the RSA we refer to this latter phenomenon as the social aspiration gap).
The idealist case (which might be termed neo-Aristotelian in that it is similar in form if not in specific content to Aristotle’s argument for eudaimonia) suggests that without development, people are being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil their potential and that this is a wrong in itself.
It is perfectly possible to subscribe to all three rationales. However, there are a couple of wrinkles. What if a huge carbon capturing machine was invented tomorrow which enabled us to churn out emissions with impunity, would environmentalists then have to abandon their interest in human development? The flip side is the tendency (which I have commented on in the past) for some green activists to appear to be smuggling in a progressive or anti-consumerist agenda under the cover of climate change concern. Similarly, the functionalist case runs the risk of encouraging an attitude of pessimism: we may feel compelled to reject the possibility of progress without advanced consciousness.
The idealist case avoids these risks but can appear either pious or elitist: why would we expect the human race to make a big leap forward in its functioning? And anyway, who are a bunch of touchy-feely liberals to tell the rest of the world who they ought to be and how they ought to think?
Another approach to human development involves applying new thinking about human behaviour to enduring debates about political philosophy. Aided powerfully by findings from social psychology and behavioural economics, the case for genuine autonomy involving capacities for reflexivity, mindfulness and self-control seems ever stronger. While the idea that we must learn to be free has authoritarian, or at least paternalistic, overtones it is surely, in essence, true.
The argument to social justice is both more complex, and arguably, more tentative. In my 21st century enlightenment lecture I reflected on the absence from most conversations about the content of social justice (the definition of equality, rights and entitlements) of this question: what is it that encourages to want to extend fairness towards strangers? Surely the answer lies, at least in part, in empathy, one of the most commonly cited attributes of higher order thinking.
If empathy is the affective foundation for a commitment to greater (wider and deeper) fairness, more universal higher order capabilities may also be the goal of social justice strategies. There is, for example, much evidence that social or ‘soft’ skills (ranging from inter-personal communication to team working to creative thinking) are becoming an increasingly ubiquitous requirement in the labour market. Many – including the RSA – have expressed concern that our modern education system shoves people through an examination system while failing to attend to precisely the capabilities most needed for modern work and citizenship.
The RSA’s strap-line - 21st century enlightenment – points to a human development project combining the philosophical ideals that became prominent around the time the Society was founded, contemporary thinking about human nature and behaviour plus an account of future challenges and what they require of us.
Innovation is as innovation does
What do you generate by burning bad people? The answer, of course, is synergy.
This overused concept is on my mind right now.
I used it quite a lot this morning in my speech to the HE Leadership Institute (a high point of which was me reading aloud some of the great comments to Monday’s blog). As well as challenging universities to be better at collaboration with other local agencies and with other HEIs I also talked about the need to promote better collaboration within institutions.
It is in spaces and processes which bring together people with different interests, expertise and resources that innovation is most likely to occur. It is also here that we can identify ‘the hidden wealth’ (a capacity for creativity, generosity, trust and solidarity) which often lies dormant trapped between specialisms and hierarchies and crushed by narrow incentives.
In the past, speaking of such issues has (notwithstanding my brilliant way with words, on which it is perhaps unnecessary for me to dwell ongoingly at this moment in time) left me with a hollow sensation. It was all very well blahing on about innovation, but not being a brilliant entrepreneur, inventor or explorer myself, who am I to opine on such matters?
But now it feels like I may have some foundation of authority on which to stand. When the RSA, in conjunction with our friends at CRI, won a contract to provide post-treatment drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in West Kent it was important for three main reasons: first, providing public services on a payment by results basis is an exciting new challenge for the Society; second, we have this opportunity following a six year process of research, prototyping and experimentation; and third, because the bid had Fellowship engagement at its heart.
Already, I hear this engagement paying off with meetings to explore collaboration between the West Kent project team and Fellows who are senior in local public services, the community sector and business. A similarly high powered gathering held recently in Peterborough – also discussing community support for people in recovery – apparently reaped both great ideas and concrete offers of help.
Over the last few years we have sought fundamentally to change expectations of Fellowship. Instead of an assumption that the primary role of Fellows is as donors who enable paid staff to have ideas to change the world, we see Fellows themselves as being full participants in our charitable mission. This means we can really tap into the hidden wealth of our Fellows and the idea of Fellowship.
Despite West Kent, Peterborough and many other examples of Fellowship action, the journey is far from complete. Having now raised expectations and aspirations we have the welcome, but growing, challenge of providing sufficient support for an ever more active and ambitious Fellowship.
But it does now feel like we can advocate social innovation to others from a position of insight and legitimacy. I also have no hesitation is inviting anyone out there who has a generous, collaborative and inventive mind set to explore the possibility of Fellowship (if you want to know more email me at matthew.taylor@rsa.org.uk).
And finally another synergy: our events team has built some great partnerships, including with prestigious media outlets like Channel Four and LBC. One example is our hosting of BBC Radio 4’s series Four Thought. The short lecture on education and creativity being broadcast tonight at 8.45 is given by RSA Fellowship Council member Gerard Darby. Whatever a self-satisfied old bureaucrat like me says, it is great FRSAs like Gerard who are the best possible advert for RSA Fellowship.
Can we get engaged?
Undeterred by the gradual drying up of comments, this is – for the time being – the penultimate of a series of posts on ‘the paradox of entitlement’. The most recent have explored two ways of reinforcing the reciprocal dimension of welfare and public service entitlements: conditionality and the contributory principle. Today I return to one of my recurrent themes over the years; how can public services be reimagined and redesigned to accentuate their reciprocal and relational core?
This is hardly novel and should be an easy argument to make. We know parental engagement is vital to the success of pupils and schools; lifestyles, attitudes and observance of treatment regimes are crucial to the prognosis of NHS patients, and the police find their job almost impossible if communities don’t exercise at least some level of responsibility and self- policing.
Public service outcomes are demonstrably the result of the collective efforts of service providers, service users and the wider community. Whether a basic public service entitlement turns into a life enhancing experience depends to a large degree on us and the ways we relate to those services. Yet still this truism remains marginal to the narrative, culture and day to day practice of public service management. So rather than making the case for relational public services again, I want to explore through concrete examples some reasons why the insight seems so hard to act upon.
The first is simply that change takes time and effort and can go wrong. The RSA itself offers an illustration. Following strategic guidance from Trustees, the RSA has over the last four years made a concerted effort to engage its Fellows more fully as partners in the delivery of the Society’s charitable mission. This has involved many changes including; the replacement of the former appointed, consultative Council with a new representative and more hands-on Fellowship Council; the creation of a team of dedicated network facilitators developing and supporting Fellows’ activities; encouraging Fellows to form networks at whatever geographical level and around whatever shared interest works best for them; supporting a wide variety of ways for Fellows to engage with each other on-line; the creation of the Catalyst Fund which regularly gives small grants to back Fellow’s initiatives; and a much greater emphasis on engaging Fellows in the Society’s research and development projects.
It is clear now that the faith of Trustees and the hard work of RSA staff is paying off: There are four or five times as many active Fellows’ groups as a few years ago (and that’s just the ones we know about), we have a good flow of bids to the Catalyst Fund and the quality of those bids continues to improve, RSA Fellows are playing a prominent part in key research projects (and this is being increasingly seen by our partners as part of the attraction of working with the Society), and the current Fellowship survey is showing both high levels of satisfaction and a growing enthusiasm for engagement.
Quite apart from all the good things generated by this engagement (many of which I have highlighted in blog posts), it has provided authenticity and distinctiveness to the Society’s mission; in arguing that the 21st century need a new more ambitious model of citizenship we are increasingly able to show how the Society’s Fellows are exemplifying that ideal.
Our pride at what has been achieved is exceeded only by our ambition for what could lie ahead. But, and here’s the rub, at times the process of engagement has been exhausting, dispiriting and even sometimes felt like it might all be a massive error. Among the mistakes we have made have been a lack of realism about how quickly culture can change, raising expectations without having the infrastructure to meet them and under-estimating the fierce resistance to change among those in the Fellowship who prefer a more traditional, hierarchical, model of engagement. Most of all, the process of working out how best – with limited resources – to support a group of busy volunteers to develop good ideas and act on them involves continuous trial and error, learning and self-criticism. If the Trustees and Executive had not seen Fellowship engagement as an essential part of the RSA strategy we may well have lost heart and momentum.
So it is with the welfaer state. Indeed with growing needs, shrinking resources and the requirement of public accountability, the challenges are much greater. In attempts at the engagement of service users and citizens by public service managers and professionals there are invariably times when the whole process feels like more trouble than it’s worth. That’s when engagement is abandoned or more often scaled down to something less ambitious and more manageable. But it is almost better not to try than to enter into a process with a lack of conviction or realism.
Because engagement can be so difficult the public sector is prone to a self-fulfilling prophesy: a half-hearted commitment leads to a failed process which confirms the initial scepticism.
An important reason for that scepticism lies in the bureaucratic/professional culture of public services. To make this point simply (this post is already too long) I go back to an example I gave a few weeks ago: research by Anne Hook and Bernice Andrews found that a significant variable in the effectiveness of psychiatric treatment for depression was whether patients disclosed their true feelings to therapists. Those who hid their feelings – generally because of shame – were much less likely to get a good outcome.
The first lesson is that patients have to use the service responsibly (respecting the therapist’s need for openness) for it to succeed. But – and this is crucial – this lesson can only be learned alongside a second. Over to Dryden Badenoch, who wrote the blog post in which I read of the research:
By illustrating the effect of individual client decisions on therapeutic outcome, Hook and Andrews have furthered the argument for routinely considering the client’s contribution to the effectiveness of psychological therapies, rather than treating the client as a passive recipient of the ‘miracle therapy’ or the attentions of the ‘super-shrink’.
It is not easy for professionals and managers to accept that their success depends not just on their own methods and skills but on the engagement of services users and citizens, and also to accept that this engagement is only likely to work if they give up some of their own authority and power. The combination of professional resistance and the sheer difficulty and effort involved provides a high barrier to reconceiving public services as reciprocal and collaborative. Which is why people like me have been banging on about this for so long but making so little progress.
It is my great privilege and good fortune to have been able to test the theory out on the RSA and to see our amazing Fellows generating such exciting results. What organisations do is a more powerful influence than what they say. Hopefully, by sticking the course and showing how genuine engagement pays off, we can inspire others in the third and public sector to follow our lead.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
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.