realisedevelopment.net

Just another WordPress site

There is Another Game in Town….and she is called Elsie

by

You might be forgiven for thinking that traditional ‘economic development’ is the only game in town.  Shopping centres, arenas and enterprise zones, vocational education and training producing a workforce to meet the needs of employers.

This kind of stuff has been the mainstream of economic development for as long as I can remember.

But there is another game that WE can play..

One which relies less on ‘attracting’ talent and wealth from outside and more on developing the passion, aspiration and skills of the people that already make up our communities.  It works with what we have got, starting from where we are.

It relies on the ability of local people to support each other, with knowledge, skills, networks and wherever possible custom.   Instead of looking to buy ‘star players’ to join the team we instead set up an academy, a place and a process in which we can explore our potential and find the people and other resources that we need to move our projects forward.

This is where Elsie comes in.

Leeds Community Enterprise Accelerator (Elsie) is a project designed to build the capacity of ordinary people in the Leeds community to shape their own future according to their own hopes and aspirations.  It starts with what we have, and works with what we have got.  The project needs you to get involved.  It runs on a ‘pay what you like but free is fine policy’ so cost should not be a barrier to getting involved.

So, please, if you want to see another game in town when it comes to developing an economy that serves our community have a look at Elsie and get involved.

Let’s Just Be Against Stuff, Shall We?

by

  • If we don’t agree with the politics then we must be against the policies, mustn’t we?
  • If the idea comes from the bosses, then the workers need to oppose it, don’t they?
  • If the council propose cuts, then we should fight them, shouldn’t we?

Well, actually, no.

Sometimes I do choose to be ‘against stuff’, particularly if it meets some or all of the following criteria:

  1. It will involve investing public money to further increase the gap between the rich and poor.
  2. It puts at unwarranted risk a vital organisation or service.
  3. It means committing to a course of action that cannot be escaped.

The first of these will always get me into opposition mode!  And sadly most of what we call ‘development’ in a modern city meets this criteria.   The pursuit of GDP means finding ways to provide services, usually retail and entertainment, to people with disposable income, at a profit for investors.  Usually this criterion is quite easy to apply.  And as soon as a proponent of ‘stuff’ calls ‘trickle down’ into the debate than you can be pretty sure that your opposition is well founded.

The second of these is harder to apply.  It is more personal and subjective.  After all what constitutes an ‘unwarranted risk’?  And which services are ‘vital’?

Let’s deal with ‘vital’ first.  I usually do a little thought experiment.  I think about the service users and try to empathise with some of the least powerful amongst them.  I now go on to ask myself ‘Is it likely that any of them would put this organisation or service close to the top of their list of essential services?  If the service was lost would their life be forever blighted, or could another service substitute?  Can they find another way to fill the gap?’

This is why I will get exercised over policies that impact on health, financial inclusion and education for example, but get less exercised, although sympathetic, about the shutting of libraries, the banning of hunting with dogs and closing swimming pools.  There are other ways to access books, if access to books is the priority.  There are other ways to exercise and socialise. And there are greater causes competing for my time than the modern day barbarity that is hunting.  It is also why I can’t get overly exercised about communities building tree-houses, unless they are affordable housing!

Unwarranted risk is trickier.  Subjective.  Personal.

Here I do another thought experiment (if they worked for Einstein…..:-)) and try to assess the consequences of a ‘false positive’ compared with the consequences of a ‘false negative’.  A ‘false negative’ is when we decide not to pursue a course and it later seems to be a wrong decision.  So, if we decide not to build nuclear and we all end up dying in cold, dark caves, that would be a ‘false negative’.  If, on the other hand, we go nuclear and end up frying in a  radioactive hell – that would be a ‘false positive’.

Now it strikes me that with coalition ‘healthcare reforms’ that Cameron and Clegg both reckoned that Lansley was about to press the button on a ‘false positive’ when a ‘false negative’ would be a much better option.  Hence the listening exercise.  Of course, ideally the world would be full of ‘true negatives’ and ‘true positives’: we would only ever make right decisions.

It is sad that more politicians don’t feel like it might be electorally acceptable to say ‘we are just going to leave it be’ from time to time.

And my 3rd criterion is that of generally, but not always, opposing a step that can’t be undone.  Burning the boats may have worked for Cortez  but as a rule of thumb it is not for me.  Engineering a situation where people are compelled to push forward with a policy once it is enacted whatever the consequences rarely turns out well.

So these are the guidelines that I use when deciding whether to be against stuff. Far from perfect, but they work well enough for me.

However I try not to be against very, much at all.

If my criteria leave room for doubt then I will ‘leave it be’.  A ‘false negative’ is often better than a ‘false positive’ in my experience.  Choosing not to object at all is better than deciding to object to something that you are not deeply committed about.

I prefer instead to be ‘for stuff’ wherever I can.

Especially stuff that will narrow the gaps between rich and poor in our society.  But also stuff that will be fun, engaging, creative and challenging.

And usually when I choose to be against stuff it is because it steals resources away from the things that I would like to see happen.

Towards Enterprising Communities…

by

No-one can agree on a community.  Is it defined by political geography? Physical geography? Economic geography?  Interest, practice, culture?  So how do we use such an elusive, slippery yet, for some of us, attractive and powerful concept.

Well, personally I have given up worrying about how ‘communities’ are defined by outsiders (politicians, funders, missionaries of various kinds, what Paul Theroux calls the Dark Angels of Virtue).  The only thing that matters for me is the individual, or the usually small group sat in front of me, and their perception of their community, defined their way.  Any other attempt to work with the concept for me is just hot air.  We all define community personally and, very probably, uniquely.

But that does not make the concept useless.  Quite the opposite.

I spend a lot of time helping people to look at the relationships and contexts that they are a part of and the extent to which they help or hinder them to become the kind of person that they wish to become, accomplishing the things that they most wish to accomplish.  And I will spend time working with them on how they can get more of the support that they need from their ‘community’.  I spend a lot of time and energy building networks of people who just love to ‘help’.  Many of these networks are a blend of face to face and online – mediated through blogs and social networks as well as through a range of meetings, gatherings and parties.  And I try to connect individuals from one network into individuals from another, so that help can start to flow across and between different groups.

So first we have to find self interest.  That which really matters personally.  That which shapes who we are.  That on which our identity is based and through which it can be constructively shaped.

Then we have to find common cause and build networks and relationships where we can successfully negotiate our self interest.  We then forge connections between these networks to build a diverse, resourceful ‘community’ of individuals who are helping and being helped as part of their daily practice.  Surely this puts us firmly on the trail of the enterprising community?

And for great things to happen people have to learn to help each other.   The stereotype of the selfish backstabbing ‘Apprentice’ does not thrive in an enterprising community – though they may do well in The City.  Successful citizens in the enterprising community learn to associate, collaborate, cooperate and mutualise.  To find those with whom there is a common cause.  And they understand that giving hep to others is as important as getting help themselves.  The have the Go-Giver mindset and they express it through their actions.  They live it.

So, as those who attended Enterprising Community: Big Conversation explored, enterprising community is not a place or a neighbourhood but a philosophy, that can be summed up as ‘Concentrate on yourself and helping your neighbour’.