Cass lecture: Building a better society
In a seminal speech at Cass Business School on 3 November 2010, Sir Stuart argued that the Big Society agenda presents key opportunities for the voluntary sector to set its direction and content.
A little over three years ago, I came here to talk about the future of civil society. I set out my vision of what was then a relatively unknown concept, and considered what steps would be needed to safeguard and strengthen civil society in the years ahead. I don’t think any of us then had a sense of how different things would now be:
- we have not just a new Government, but a new kind of government;
- we are facing the most difficult economic climate for a generation;
- and the term civil society has entered into common parlance. Indeed, it now has its own Office.
Since then, NCVO has been working with our members and others to develop a vision for our sector, and for the good society: one that promotes fairness and social justice; where people are inspired to make a positive difference in their communities. And where there is a central role for independent voluntary action, in all its forms.
The Government's Big Society agenda picks up on, and overlaps with our vision in a number of ways. Not least in terms of the value of voluntary action and the need to rebalance the relationship between the state, market and civil society. It is therefore timely for me to return to this theme.
If the Government is serious about taking forward the Big Society, it will need to convince people that it has a positive agenda and that it can deliver that agenda. It must be more than hot air and good intentions.
Today I want to suggest a way forward. I will start by saying why a new settlement between citizens, the state, the market and civil society is needed: Only in this way can we both meet the challenges ahead and build the good society. I will then go on to explore what that means for the state; for civil society; and for the relationship between them. Focusing particularly on the value of social action; the need to transform public services; and our right to campaign. I will conclude by suggesting what a new settlement might look like.
Why a new settlement is needed
This debate takes place at a time of profound social, technological, ecological and economic change. As a consequence, our communities are facing new challenges - challenges that are of a scale and complexity much greater than anything we have faced before.
Global networks of communication, transportation and trade have brought many benefits, but have also perpetuated injustices. People have become better connected than ever before, yet fear they are less in control of the forces that govern their lives. We care about the fate of 33 miners in Chile, yet may be afraid of the stranger in our own street. And how we balance economic prosperity and environmental sustainability - and do so in ways that are fair and just, both globally and locally – have become urgent questions.
I do not think we have fully grasped the significance of these challenges. Few of our institutions have kept up with the pace of change: solutions that were designed for the twentieth century cannot be relied on as a guide to the future. These are cross-cutting issues that cannot be solved by one sector alone. Effective, sustainable solutions require all parts of society– government, the private sector, civil society and citizens – to work together to achieve the transformations that this century demands. We are, in a very real sense, all in it together.
If we, as a society, are to meet these challenges, we need to rebuild our institutions and our communities from the bottom up. We need to engage people in debates about the future and enable them to make a positive difference, in their lives and their communities. And we need to look beyond conventional solutions and recognise the value of a thriving civil society and a healthy democracy, if we are to nurture the good society.
The good society
For many centuries, politicians, economists and philosophers have debated the relative merits and limits of the state and the market in securing the common good. Is the good society one where every person has equal access to services provided by the state? Or one where every person is free to choose for themselves. Is liberty a higher virtue than equality – or vice versa?
In practice both approaches have been found wanting. The architects of the classic welfare state assumed that solidarity and social cohesion would be nurtured by pooling the risks of infirmity and insecurity. But the large welfare bureaucracies that emerged left little scope for either.
While markets can be more sensitive to individual demand, they are less sensitive to need; they can create outcomes that are often unfair and unjust. And a system designed to maximise private value is not sufficient for determining the public good. We may feel more empowered as individuals, but less empowered as citizens.
So what is missing? In my view, we need to reclaim the values of trust, solidarity and 'fraternity', alongside those of liberty and equality – promoting ties based on moral obligations, rather than rights; on community rather than contract. And to recognise that it is through our obligations to, and engagement with each other that we become, to use John Gaventa's term, 'makers and shapers' rather than simply 'users and choosers'.
That is why I believe that we need more democratic approaches to determining priorities and outcomes and more reciprocal approaches to delivering services on the ground.
The state
Much of the debate about the Big Society has assumed a smaller role for the state – although opinion tends to be divided between those who think this is a good thing and those who do not. But it is not a zero sum game: the state has a different and distinctive role. And we need to be clear what we think that role should be.
Should it exist merely to defend us from tyranny and despotism; from a Hobbesian war of all against all, that would occur if we did not consent to be governed? If this is the case, our aim should be to simply divest government of a wide range of powers and responsibilities, as the Tea Party-ers are shouting for.
While few here would go that far, there is an assumption that its role is primarily to distribute public goods and services. This lies behind the recent interest in creating councils in the image of John Lewis or Easy Jet, according to your political persuasion. Or the idea that local government should outsource everything, so that councillors need meet only to agree and review contracts.
I would argue that it has a bigger role to play – helping to secure the good society.
Public decision-making involves meeting, reconciling and sometimes rejecting particular interests, in the interest of all. That can only be achieved through the democratic process. As in classical democracy, we should be giving greater emphasis to the idea of self-government: for Aristotle, the polis or state is not simply 'an association for residence on a common site, or for the sake of preventing mutual injustice and easing exchange. The end and purpose of a polis is the good life, and the institutions of social life are the means to that end.'
An enabling state is one that represents the interests of all citizens; ensures equality, fairness and due process; and has the legitimacy to take decisions in the wider public interest: to secure the good life. And it engages people in a broader debate about local priorities - what services they need, what outcomes they want to achieve and what compromises they may be willing to make- to secure the common good.
This changes the focus of state concern from contractual relationships with service providers, to political relationships with citizens. It introduces the concept of public, as opposed to private value. The idea that the purpose of public sector agencies is to ensure that public money is used to achieve outcomes that the public value: that meet their collective needs, preferences and aspirations.
Therefore the corollary of the big society is not necessarily the small state: as David Cameron has said, "we should not be naïve enough to think that if the government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more… The truth is that we actually need a government that will build the Big Society."
Social action
The Prime Minister has described the Big Society as "enabling people to come together to solve problems and improve life for themselves and their communities." He has an ambitious vision of mass engagement, a national culture of responsibility and commitment to social action. It involves the development of new norms around volunteering: people across society should be encouraged to actively engage in the causes and with the organisations they believe in. That is something I believe in.
If these ambitions are to be realised, we must widen and deepen public participation, creating opportunities for people to engage with each other, as well as with public bodies. And to do so on their own terms. That is the role of our sector: voluntary and community organisations have long been a vehicle for social action. They provide a foundation for building a bigger – and better society.
Our organisations are a catalyst for collective action, the means by which people help others; give and receive mutual support; pursue shared interests; or simply have fun. They play a vital role in fostering trust and reciprocity; creating a sense of belonging and a regard for others.
Creating communities
As Tocqueville found, it is through voluntary associations we develop the 'habits of the heart' that make us good citizens, drawing us out of our self-interested lives to attend to the common good. Community participation, even for fun, is therefore a prior condition for social and political participation. In an increasingly diverse society, a healthy associational life is more important than ever. Without our organisations, society becomes more fragmented and less civil.
Some people have argued that state action has crowded out voluntary action, although evidence to support this is limited: people's participation has changed over the years, but they remain engaged. Others, however, are concerned that state inaction could be a greater issue, particularly at a time of deep fiscal retrenchment. We don't yet know what the consequence of real cuts in statutory spending will be.
There is no guarantee that if the state retreats the resulting space will be filled by willing citizens. It is also possible that it will create a vacuum that will, instead, be filled by gangs and guns - the 'uncivil tendencies of civil society' – as happened in America in the 1980s.
And many small, local groups - Burke's little platoons of civil society, operating 'below the radar' - are afraid they might be expected to fill in the gaps that are left, and that this will push them into 'roles which changed their purpose and ethos'. That they will be crowded out.
The late William Plowden argued that voluntary action is by, its nature spontaneous, reflecting people's own interests, concerns and passions. As such it is essentially 'undirected, unprogrammed and unprogrammable'. Attempts by Government to direct this activity, making it a requirement for certain groups – young people or the unemployed - or for certain jobs, such as the police, would be counterproductive, reducing the space for independent action.
The value of volunteering lies in its ability to foster reciprocity; to initiate and sustain social relationships and networks. Compulsory volunteering cannot achieve this.
Government can create a supportive environment, putting in place the conditions that enable associational life to flourish. It can promote and celebrate voluntary action, for example by making its proposed Big Society day a national Bank Holiday; or by giving all employees a right to five days off a year - to participate in their community, or support a cause they care about. And by ensuring they are not overly regulated, which is why I very much welcome Lord Hodgson’s red tape review. It has already picked up on the priority issues, particularly in relation to volunteering.
I also welcome the Government's commitment to strengthening philanthropy, and encourage a culture of giving to charity. However, this will not arise simply out of a wish for it to exist. In America, it has long been a fundamental part of the national culture, where the rich are seen as having a 'duty' to give. But it will take time, skill and great effort to develop a similar culture in the UK. It will need a long term strategy - one that is based on enhancing the value of voluntary action, not replacing Government cuts.
We need to think what more we can do to make the step change needed to create and embed new social norms around giving. Research in this area suggests that giving time or money is a psychological act as much as, or more than a rational one. People's motivation may be linked to their values, their attachment to a place, or their personal experience of an issue. We should engage people more on that basis, as supporters rather than simply donors; focusing on why they give, not just on what we can get.
Information technology and social media offer new opportunities to engage people's support –on their terms, not ours. There has been some exciting innovations in recent years, such as Pledgebanks and micro-volunteering opportunities – apparently 'you can volunteer in your pyjamas'! These developments enable, perhaps encourage, people to give spontaneously and sporadically. This is a real opportunity to reach out and engage with people who currently don't give, particularly younger people.
But what else is needed? Local organisations and networks must not lose out in this financial climate: small grants schemes, for example, can be a lifeline for some. They cost relatively little, but they can make a big difference to the well-being of individuals and communities – and, ultimately reduce demand on the state. They are a solid investment.
Government also has a responsibility to ensure that when someone wants to volunteer they know how to do so. When they want to set up a new group or develop an existing one, they have the support they need. And grassroots organisations should be able to connect with each other: to build solidarity; share ideas and experiences; to have a common voice on common issues. The Big Society must be more than the sum of its parts.
And we must also do our bit to support each other. As Andrew Hind recently said, "We don't recognise the extent to which charities - and by extension their beneficiaries - depend on one another's success. And we don't encourage enough mutual support and co-operation within the sector. ... The sector itself ... must take responsibility for the health of the charitable ecosystem, for its reputation and for the levels of trust it receives from the public."
I agree. We should work better together – not just for the sake of our organisations, but for the people and communities that we work with, if by working together we can be more effective at meeting people’s needs.
Public services
Take the example of public service reform. The Government is keen to see our sector play a greater role in delivering public services, as part of the Big Society agenda. There are a range of proposals currently on the table, including the suggestion that there could be a 'quota' for different types of providers. I am not in favour of this. As I have argued before, the aim of reform should not simply be to transfer services from one sector to another. But to achieve a genuine, lasting and positive transformation in the services that people receive.
The problem with public services is that they are being driven by the wrong model of delivery: if services are designed and commissioned in the same way that they have always been, then the outcomes will be the same whoever is delivering them. Simply trying to do more for less, or even less for less, will not address this problem.
Tightly defined contracts and narrow performance measures crowd out innovation, experimentation and the ability to respond to the needs of individuals or communities. Even in a highly competitive market, once a contract has been awarded it becomes a blunt tool to promote quality or improve performance, particularly when the cost of breaking a contract is high. As the MoD can testify.
Real transformation requires us to fundamentally change the way we think about public services; the people who provide them; those who use them; and the relationship between them. And it requires us to focus on people's wellbeing, rather than just the provision of welfare. On people's lives and communities, not on service silos.
That means having different sorts of conversations with people about the services they want and need. We must start by asking how we can improve people's quality of life, not just the quality of services. Good public services are the means not the end. In an ageing society, for example, we need to ask older people what they need to lead fulfilling and active lives and work with them to find solutions, not simply provide services to them.
Co-production is about people doing things for themselves and in partnership with volunteers and professionals. If taken seriously, it has the potential to achieve a real - and realistic – devolution of power providers to service users; and from local services to the communities they serve.
KeyRing is an excellent example of an organisation that works in this way: it supports people with learning disabilities; enabling them not only to live in the community, but to become active members of it, supporting each other and taking part in local activities.
Organisations such as this don't just provide care in the community. They help to create communities that care. That, in my view, should be the essence of the Big Society, taking account of what people can give, as well as what they need; providing services that build on, and link into people’s own networks and neighbourhood support systems, as well as other public services.
In my view, good public services are a core element of the good society. But if we are to achieve the real, radical transformation that I believe is necessary, we have to do a number of things:
Firstly, we must place the agenda of people and communities, not just individual consumers - or existing services- at the heart of the reform process. Pooled budgets will help commissioners to do this and therefore should become the norm, not just a means of targeting the most needy.
Secondly, we must start commissioning services on the basis of trust, rather than contract. Outcomes should be agreed with providers in advance, taking account of public needs, values and aspirations. But monitoring requirements should be limited: trustees should be trusted to decide for themselves how best to serve the needs of the community. Not only would this reduce costs it would also focus attention people’s needs, not on ticking boxes.
And thirdly, public services should be given a clear mutual structure to give local people more democratic control. Foundation Hospitals were intended to do this, but their ties with local people and communities are weak. A clearer structure and a defined electorate would mean that people felt they had real ownership.
What these suggest is that transformation requires continuity and co-operation, rather than competition. Community and reciprocity rather than contract.
The right to campaign
But a greater emphasis on co-operation does not mean that our organisations should not challenge or criticise when necessary.
An active and vibrant civil society strengthens democracy: creating opportunities for people to engage in, and mobilise around issues of concern. They inspire people to get involved in debates about social problems and solutions; to consider what the good society would look like. And they give people the skills and confidence to speak for themselves. In this way they enable different voices to be heard, different viewpoints to be expressed, including unpopular and dissenting views.
Dissent, and the right to dissent, are vital underpinnings of a good society. Central government has a duty to safeguard the civil rights that underpin our freedoms. I have long been concerned at the impact of counter-terrorism legislation on our rights of expression and rights of assembly. This has undoubtedly had a chilling effect on civil society. I therefore welcome the proposed Freedom Bill. But I would urge the Government to go further: to champion the sector's right to campaign and to protest within the law. This surely is the Big Society in action.
Campaigning by charities across a broad spectrum of issues, from the abolition of slavery to disability rights, has often energised and provoked public debate in ways that have led to real, positive change. It has put new needs and issues such as climate change onto the public policy agenda. Would the Government be as willing to protect spending on international development, if we hadn’t campaigned to make poverty history?
As the impact of the cuts start to bite, it will be more important than ever that the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society have a voice. Our organisations have a responsibility to provide that voice and to speak out on behalf of those we work with and for. Addressing the causes as well as the consequences of poverty and social exclusion.
As Mark Rosenman has argued, if not us then who?
Devolution
This role will be particularly important in the context of the localism agenda. With more power devolved from central government to individuals, neighbourhoods and local councils. I believe that it is right that people should have a greater say in decisions that affect their lives and in the running of local services. And local government should have more freedom to act in the interests of the communities they serve. This should lead to better decisions; better outcomes and stronger communities.
But, it will only work if all voices are heard, including those who are most often marginalised. If the steps are taken to ensure that those who have least do not benefit least from any transfer of power and resources. And if there is a real commitment to genuine partnership working to build a bigger and better society.
Local authorities will have a key role to play in determining whether the rhetoric of the Big Society matches the reality. Therefore while I welcome the commitment to devolution, I fear that if the Government simply leaves it to local councils, many will squeeze out the sector at this level – reducing the size of both the state and civil society at a time when both are needed most.
The centre has a critical role to play here in creating fair frameworks. For example, by setting minimum standards and entitlements; promoting equality; and backing local compacts. The Localism Bill maybe the vehicle for this. The Government has shown that it is willing to take action on some issues, for example in relation to elected police commissioners. It must now show that it has the will to act on this.
And the public, too, must accept that a post code lottery is the consequence of greater local discretion and responsibility. As I said earlier: If we are to create not just a bigger society, but a better society, we need to engage people in a broad debate about local priorities and aspirations. We can only do this by strengthening both representative and participatory democracy, ensuring that a wide range of voices are heard, not just those who shout the loudest. So that, to use Greg Clark’s phrase, it becomes less of a lottery and more a post code democracy.
Funding
I recognise that our sector is not, cannot be immune from the cuts in public spending. But nor should we be seen to be a soft target or a cheap option. In the coming months, the behaviour and attitude of local councils and other statutory bodies will be crucial: poor funding practice can make the impact of spending cuts much worse, causing healthy organisations to fail and damaging already vulnerable communities. Against this background, the Prime Minister's statement in the House in defence of local spending on the VCS is helpful. However, I am concerned that some think we have become too dependent on government funding. I would like to be clear on this point.
It is true that statutory spending on our sector has increased significantly over the last decade. But, as the Almanac shows, this has been almost entirely driven by organisations taking on contracts to deliver public services. This increased by 128% from 2000/01 to 2007/08 – though it was still less than 2% of Government expenditure.
Where voluntary and community organisations provide services on behalf of government, or activities that meet government objectives, it is only right that they should be properly and fairly paid for the services and activities they provide. But what we have seen is little more than a transfer of funding: it does not enable the sector to broaden its scope or innovate. Nor build its resilience – and given that many organisations have struggled to recover their full costs, I am not sure who has been dependent on whom.
Funding the Future
However, I agree that more should be done to create an environment where individuals and businesses are encouraged to give and/or invest in the sector.
That is why last year I set up a Funding Commission to look at the long term funding needs of our sector. It will be reporting its findings next month.
Identifying future funding needs and opportunities, in what we know will be a very different – and very difficult – financial climate, has not been an easy task. But the Commission’s findings have exceeded my expectations. The report will provide an ambitious agenda for the sector over the next ten years.
Its recommendations include proposals for a 'Better Asking Campaign' – a sector-led campaign to improve the quality and effectiveness of fundraising – to get 'more giving millions and millions giving more' .
It has identified a key role for Social Investment - stimulating the development of new financial products, such as social gilts and bonds, and underwriting these to encourage new investors into this market to develop the third leg of social finance alongside statutory funding and philanthropy.
And it will be making recommendations about how our organisations can make better use of existing funds and how they can work together to improve their skills and sustainability.
These findings and recommendations will be published next month. NCVO will be working with others in the sector to take this work forward.
Towards a new architecture
Over the last thirteen years we have worked with government to put in place the conditions we knew were needed to enable our sector to play a bigger role: the Compact; charity law reform; the extension of Gift Aid. We need to build on these successes. The renewed Compact, once agreed, must be embedded in the culture of all Departments; and included in their business plans. And it must have more teeth, with new powers given to the Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen, to ensure that organisations have some redress if and when the Compact is breached.
Gift Aid is another success story, but more needs to be done to bring it into the digital age. We need a modern, simpler system that would be cheaper to administer, both in time and money. This reform would particularly benefit small charities.
But new times will require a new architecture. We need to define a new framework to enable us to work together in the very different circumstances that we face today.
Firstly, what do we need Central Government to do?
I think more needs to be done to deliver a broad vision and role for civil society across major areas of policy, from business and finance to the digital and green economies. We could and should make a much wider contribution than we currently do.
The Office for Civil Society should take a much stronger role in this respect, promoting greater consistency and understanding of the sector throughout Whitehall. This should be backed up by a Civil Society Select Committee to facilitate Parliamentary scrutiny of policy and ensure that government takes a consistent approach to the sector and the Compact.
And there are some very practical things it can do to reduce the burden on the sector: Gift Aid I have already mentioned; it should also look at the implications of VAT, particularly in relation to shared services; and it should commission services on the basis of trust rather than contract.
Local government also has a key role to play in creating an enabling environment for voluntary action. As councils gain increasingly greater freedoms, they should work with the sector to ensure that all parts of the community can benefit from change. For example, ensuring that communities of interest are not excluded from more neighbourhood forms of governance.
Local government should work with the sector to minimise the impact of cuts, particularly on the most vulnerable communities. By providing different types of funding, including small grants to support organisations working at the grassroots, councils can help to build the resilience of their communities: in hard times, good partnerships become even more essential.
Community assets, both buildings and land, can also play a key role in strengthening communities: they can be a focus for community life and a resource to support local enterprise. More assets could and should be run by local people. But again, the goal should not be simply transferring assets out of the public sector for the sake of it. But enabling councils to work with local people and organisations to ensure those assets are used to transform local communities. Local Government also has a role in supporting community foundations.
And as civil society organisations we must take responsibility for our own independence, ensuring that we put our mission and beneficiaries first and that we are prepared to speak out on behalf of those we work with, when necessary. And we need to work more collaboratively as a sector, so that we can meet people’s needs more effectively and have a stronger collective voice.
Membership organisations play a vital role, not only providing support in a very direct way, but also enabling organisations to support each other. If our goal is to encourage reciprocity, then we should build that in to the support that we provide. As our research has shown, people may join organisations for what they can get, but stay because of what they can give.
In the current economic climate, more needs to be done to ensure that our organisations have the knowledge, skills and support they need to achieve their goals. To achieve this we need to put in place sustainable and effective support structures. The current configuration of infrastructure is, in my view unsustainable and, in some cases incomplete.
There is a need to rationalise support and create stronger linkages between national and local services. At a local level, for example, there should be a single structure of scale, bringing together CVSs, volunteer centres and community foundations, to maximise synergies and provide seamless support.
This process of restructuring should be planned and led by the sector itself, but government can help, for example by investing in change – and ensuring that its decisions do not act as a disincentive to change.
Conclusion
I strongly believe that the good society is built from the bottom up; from mutual and altruistic exchanges between citizens, coming together to create, and recreate a more civil society. To achieve this goal, and to meet the challenges that lie ahead, we need to build stronger relationships across sectors; create space for social action and mutual support – and incentives to encourage people to play their part in securing the common good.
Together we can build not just a bigger society, but a better society.
For more information, please contact Mandy Murphy in NCVO’s press office on 020 7520 2469 or email mandy.murphy@ncvo-vol.org.uk.
