realisedevelopment.net

Just another WordPress site

Does Big Society Foretell the Demise of Confrontational Government?

by

Kevin Harris has written a fascinating post about the possibility of the transition to Big Society foretelling the demise of confrontational we/you type government.
I too can see a way in which Big Society foretells the demise of command and control. However I can also see dozens of ways in which it doesn’t.  The recent Marsh Farm decision provides an example.
Government has a long track record of maintaining the status quo while providing the illusion of radical change.  Left/Right, Centralise/Decentralise, National/Local.  They all look like major change, but in fact politicians and civil servants collude to ensure that nothing REALLY happens.  It is  as if the pendulum of change is allowed to swing through an arc of only a very few degrees.
Kevin makes a good point about the nature of  you/me thinking.  A shift to ‘we’ would do no harm at all.  But I am not holding my breathe.  The very nature of democracy means that we elect a ‘you’.
In my mind the real shift needs to from a perspective where government seeks to engage us in the delivery of their agenda to one where it learns to engage itself in the development of our agendas.  A government focussed on enabling citizens in pursuit of their interests rather than recruiting them to do the work of the state.
But I will not hold my breathe for that swing of the pendulum either.
Perhaps it is time we learned to wean ourselves off the teat of the state and learn to make progress without them?

The Future is… Nomadic?

by

Is it time for a post-settlement society?

Are home ownership, long-term council house tenancies and commitment to a community doomed to become little more than quaint memories of how society used to work?  Do they restrict the mobility of skills, knowhow and muscle power that a modern economy demands?

There are many that argue this case.  Richard Florida suggests in his book The Great Reset that the creative classes should no longer tie themselves down geographically by committing to mortgages and buying properties.  Grant Shapps, Housing Minister wants social housing tenants to have Housing Freedom Pass and a National Home Swap Scheme to allow tenants to move in pursuit of work, or for ‘any other reason’.

The message seems to be ‘don’t commit yourself to a community – be prepared to follow the money – the future is nomadic’.

Can you imagine a society divided into the rooted and the rootless?  Those who can afford to commit to a community for the long term and those who can’t?

It used to be that we wanted people to come to our communities and stay in them.  To shape a society and an economy that would serve the community.  To care about community.  Now the big idea seems to be shaping community to serve the economy.

  • Is this progress?  Or a progress trap?
  • Should we engineer society to meet the increasingly dynamic demands of a growing and shifting economy?
  • Or should we engineer the economy to serve the kind of communities in which we wish to live?
  • Will increasing social mobility help to reduce inequalities and promote social justice?  Or will it create even more stark demarcations between rich and poor?
  • How will our city evolve if the churn in our working communities is significantly increased?
  • Or will the possibility of a digital Britain and an economy that is ‘lighter than air‘ mean that spatial mobility is much less of an issue than we may think?
  • Or is it just a lot of fuss about nowt?

Putting Power in the Hands of Individuals and Communities…

by

We agreed that…our government’s purpose is to make two major shifts in our political and national life:

The first is a radical redistribution of power from government to communities and people, to reverse decades of over-centralisation. Almost all our plans involve giving individuals, families and communities more control over their lives – whether that’s through opening new schools, giving locally elected councillors a say over local NHS services or holding local police to account.

Clegg and Cameron’s Letter to MPs of the Coalition Government

At first glance this is a gift for those of us who have advocated the potential of individuals and communities to shape their own destiny.  But I think it shows a lack of understanding about how such processes can work.

Communities and individuals are being offered power to do the work that some aspect of the state had previously done.  They are being pointed at opportunities identified by the powerful where they maybe allowed to play a part.   In the examples cited above to manage schools, health and policing.  Perhaps also to buy the local pub and turn it into a social enterprise or cooperative.  Or to take over an old school or library and turn it into a community asset.

All very laudable at first glance.

But there is no real shift  of power going on here.  Individuals and communities are being invited to play a larger part in delivering the strategies of the powerful.  There seems to be little or no sign of individuals and communities being allowed to set their own development agendas, to build their power to tackle the issues that really impact on their lives.   There is little evidence of real self-determination being encouraged, just more gentle manipulation to ‘good folk’ to do their bit in times of austerity.

And much of this will play well to middle Britain and its obsessions with schooling, policing and the delivery of healthcare.

But how will it play out in some of our poorest communities?  What will the impact of this ‘radical redistribution of power’ be on them?

My best guess is that for many the impact will be detrimental, unless we find a way to really engage them as individuals and communities in working on their agenda rather than on the agenda of the state.  Doing things that will make a real difference in their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

When we tell people how we wish them to participate in transforming their own worlds we can be sure that either:

  • we are not really sincere in our wishes for any such transformation, or
  • while we do wish for a radical transformation we do not understand the processes through which it might be achieved.

Perhaps it is time for Cameron and Clegg to read a little more Paulo Friere to go with their Philip Blond?

There is the world of difference between ‘putting power in the hands of individuals and communities’ and helping people to develop their power to shape their lives.

Apartheid in Leeds?

by

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness”.  And I see a surfeit of ‘apartheid’ in development processes in our city.

Let’s look at the ‘Vision for Leeds’.  In its official version I believe this is a statutory requirement for the council to produce.  It has a website and a series of workshops each aimed at a different sector.  Cultural types are kept apart from third sector types.  Business people have their own workshop provision.   But there is also an ‘unofficial’ vision being developed by the very wonderful ‘Together for Peace’ crew.  Again I was invited to a workshop for ‘business people’.

We have myriads of other networks in Leeds. We have them for start-up entrepreneurs; for artists and cultural types; we have them for financiers and digital creatives.  We have them for hi-tech businesses and university spin-offs.  We have them for community development workers and just about every niche you can imagine.

But they nearly all require you to adopt a label, and nearly all separate you from others who don’t.  Trying to find a truly diverse network is not easy.

Now in many ways this is not a problem.  If I want to join a network to explore the latest development in double glazing then a network for double glazing specialists hits the nail on the head.

However if I want to search for ways to make progress on the problems and  opportunities facing a complex system like the City of Leeds then I had better make sure the groups I work with contain enough diversity.  That, as the systems thinkers say, we have the ‘whole system in the room’.    The beauty of large group methodologies is not that they give us powerful ways to work with large groups – but that they give us powerful ways to work with the diversity that is necessary if we are to find whole system approaches to complex challenges.  When we practice apartheid we chop the large group methodologies off at the knees.  They become nice processes with weak outcomes.

We also fragment what should be whole.  So we have a group of ‘business people’ looking at ‘the economy’.  We have a group of ‘artists’ looking at ‘culture’.  And we have the third sector looking at ‘Big Society’.  These are all facets of the same problem and we are unlikely to come up with useful interventions by consulting in isolation and hoping that we can stitch things back together later in the process.

So next time how about doing the work to get a really diverse group in the room and who knows what new ideas we might be able to spark and what new relationships we might be able to develop.

What do you think?  Have I exaggerated the problem?

Or might it be that an unconscious level of apartheid could be a major barrier to real progress in the City?