We take an optimistic view of the Big Society idea. It is at the stage that people and places might able to shape it the way they want to. There are other who worry that the emergence of BS during a period of huge cuts is more than a little suspicious.
The news in Sheffield of a 15% cut to the VCF sector emphasises there are grounds to be concerned. This is partly a follow on from the VCF review we were involved in in the city.
The New Economic Foundation (think tank) have published a report that is called "Cutting it The ‘Big Society' and the new austerity". The title and used of the quotes for Big Society (plus a chapter asking why the capitals for BS) suggests they fall into the suspicious camp. This is a pity really as they do makes some useful points about how BS might develop, but there homepage website headline emphasises their concerns: "Spending cuts will break Big Society New report says civil society has an impossible job to do in the age of austerity".
Even with the message this is putting across there are some more omptimistic bits in the report. The sections from the summary on what is good about it? and what are the challenges? (longer than the former) are useful and are below (see VCF worries as exemplified by Sheffield news above):
What's good about it?
There are strong, sensible ideas at the heart of the ‘Big Society' vision, many of them developed and promoted by nef as part of our work to build a sustainable economy. The progressive potential of the ‘Big Society' lies in:
- Encouraging citizens' involvement and action
- Recognising that everyone has assets, not just problems
- Building and strengthening social networks
- Using local knowledge to get better results
- Offering ways of transforming the welfare state.
What are the big challenges?
For all its potential, the ‘Big Society' raises a lot of questions, which become more urgent and worrying in the light of public spending cuts. The main challenges are these:
- Social justice, equality and cohesion. Not everyone can take part and benefit as easily as everyone else, because the conditions that make it possible are not equally distributed. This applies to capacity, whether individuals are able to participate; access, who can join in and who gets left out; and how much time people have to play a meaningful part in the ‘Big Society'. The combined effects of localisation and fiscal retrenchment threaten to undermine the Government's tenet that we are ‘all in this together'.
- Economic policy and spending cuts. The ‘Big Society' will be profoundly influenced by the new austerity; it is also intended to make the new austerity politically feasible. The combined consequences of harsh spending cuts and a shift of responsibility from the state to ‘civil society' should leave no doubt that the ‘Big Society' and the Government's economic policies are interdependent.
- Dangers of a shrinking state. Together, plans for a ‘Big Society' and spending cuts on an unprecedented scale seem to mark the end of the post war settlement. We move from pooling responsibility through the machinery of a democratic state to dividing it between individuals, groups, localities and organisations in the private and voluntary sectors. It is not clear how the rights of individuals will be protected, essential services guaranteed, or those who are poor, powerless and marginalised defended against those who are better off. If the state is pruned so drastically that it is neither big nor strong enough to do this, we shall end up with a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one.
- Impact on community and third-sector organisations. The ‘Big Society' may be at odds with the character and purpose of many groups and organisations. People usually choose to participate in community activities when they find them optional, small-scale, convivial and life-enhancing, but many of the Government's plans for supporting civil society are conditional, formalised, complicated and hard graft. The drive towards growth and commodification may also threaten the diversity, spontaneity and free spirit of civil society. A major concern is that efforts to reduce the deficit will undermine the very networks and groups that are most needed as life gets tougher for those who are already disadvantaged.
- The role of business. The doors are open for big corporations to take over state functions - by providing backroom support and running services. There are dangers that for-profit businesses will change the ethos, purpose and outcomes of services, with negative effects on the quality of life and opportunities of those who are most in need. There are also worries that big business will drive out smaller non-profit organisations, which could otherwise provide contracted-out services with more flexibility and local knowledge.
- Where - and how - does the buck stop? If power is devolved and responsibility shifted from the state to the private and third sectors, who can be held accountable, where are the audit trails and how can these be identified and followed? It is hard to imagine how an indeterminate number of infinitely varied organisations can be knitted into an accountability framework, but the problem can't be ignored. Things are bound to go wrong and, without accountability, there will be no way of building up public confidence and trust.
your comments
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
