Big Society is about a belief that people are often best placed to solve local problems and improve their community, when given the right information, tools, and opportunities. And that they can often do far more when they come together, than if they go it alone. Government’s task is to help make this happen, through reforming public services so that they support local people more, by empowering citizens with rights that enable them to influence and take more charge of their surroundings, and by encouraging people to play a part, however large or small.
The origins of the Big Society as an idea extend back way before the term was coined, and has roots from multiple political and philosophical traditions over the centuries. At its most fundamental level, Big Society harks back to when communities were stronger, and more interdependent, and more mutual, and when the welfare state was less overbearing and stifling and more focused on genuinely helping those in dire need.
More recently, David Cameron and his team have coined a phrase, which has often been controversial, but which has led to debate and conversations about what kind of society we live in, that have gone on far longer, and been circulating far more widely than its originators ever expected.
Now is the right time to have this conversation, as our population ages, as we try to deal with a huge deficit, and as technology changes our expectations of how we interact with the state and bureaucratic institutions in general. It is a debate, despite continuing controversy over the term “Big Society”, which is largely won – few serious politicians now dispute that citizens and communities must play a central role in the future of our public services, neighbourhoods, and in how we tackle entrenched social problems. Labour have coined their own term, the “Good Society”, and the focus of debate is now more on the relationship between austerity and Big Society, and crucially about how such visions of society will be realised, given the financial, temporal, and geographical constraints faced by citizens and families in today’s Austerity Britain.
For Big Society to continue to make an impact it will need to tackle a number of myths that its opponents, many of whom are motivated by vested interests, have attributed to it. The first is that it is a way of masking cuts – untrue: it originated far before the start of the recession. The second is that it is about getting volunteers to do the work of the state. The reality is that it is about enabling citizens to play a part, however large or small, and creating a culture of shared responsibility that acknowledges that the state cannot do it all on the one hand, and that equally citizens cannot do it all on the other. There will need to be collaboration, often facilitated by third parties such as social enterprises, as well as businesses, and other local institutions. The third is that it is a cure for poverty. While it is important that those from deprived backgrounds are not excluded from the opportunities that the Big Society will create, there remain fundamental and distinctive roles for government, business, and the social sector in tackling social injustice. Big Society can provide some of the tools, connect people to help tackle social problems, and enable those from lower income backgrounds to be more resilient in the face of poverty – but it is not a replacement for state, voluntary, and business action.
There also needs to be an acknowledgement that the Big Society will take time to foster and grow. David Cameron acknowledged this in his Hugo Young Memorial Lecture in 2009, saying that this “is not the work of one parliamentary term, or even two. Culture change is much harder than state control. It will take more than a generation.” I also stressed that there will be many setbacks along the way.
There will be three distinct phases in the process of building the Big Society. The first phase, which is ongoing and which has been the focus of most activity since the General Election, is to re-engineer parts of government so that more power is shifted to the localities and to the frontline and so that it plays more of an enabling role through policies such as the Big Society Bank, community organisers, and neighbourhood budgets.
The second phase is to encourage the development of platforms for civic action by public entrepreneurs – be they organisations, chains and franchises, or digital portals – that make it easier for citizens to come together, find out what they can get involved with, and make a start – and which help them overcome the constraints they face, whether relating to time, money, or place. So these might be chains of schools, or libraries, or timebanks, or ways of combing matched financial and other resources – harnessing technology, as well as local leadership.
The third phase will be when citizens start interacting with these platforms and the new powers they have in innovative ways that cannot be predicted today, just as the internet and web 2.0 has spawned an infinite variety of homegrown content and apps – in which Big Society becomes a part of individual and collective self-expression, tapping into our passions, interests, and creativity, rather than being boring or a burden.
The final truth to acknowledge is that Big Society will break out in different departments, geographies, and organisations in different ways and at different paces. It is essentially viral in nature – and neither purely top-down, nor purely bottom-up. Some government departments will rightly focus on the massive shift in power needed to localities, local officials, and local institutions – this is true in health and education. Others will focus more on enabling those local officials to work more closely with their communities to share responsibility. And still others will find ways to encourage action between citizens in peer-to-peer ways.
All, in their own way, will help build the Big Society, as well as performing the ongoing functions that all governments must. Some non-government institutions and geographies will instantly grasp what the Big Society means and run with the agenda, whilst others may resist it until a new generation of leaders emerge, or will need more support to engage with it. But the general direction of Big Society, the sense that power will increasingly shift more to citizens and localities, whether overnight or over a longer period of time must and will permeate our culture until one day we will each encounter it in our daily lives wherever we live, and work, and play – at which point we will instinctively say “That’s Big Society!”
Related posts:
So basically it’s compeltely benign? A return to the ninteen fifties. Or a reinvention of the councillor. Why? Because political parties can’t be bothered to represent their constituents anymore so they are outsourcing it.
“@tweetminster “@NatWei: What Big Society means” http://bit.ly/hoDSIK – @PlatformTen > stresses that its a phase based journey”
having read @natwei & heard nick hurd on @r4today, still don’t get what moves #bigsociety from nice name to reality. It’s not the idea that’s difficult to grasp. it’s yawning gap between that & making it happen & the lack of a symbolic policy.
Dear Nat
It is all very well to talk about the big society, and the need for many of the issues currently dealt with at national government level to be, instead, dealt with locally; but this is to ignore that so many minor issues today are not even a matter for our national government but have been taken over by the EU.
Personally I have no problem with co-operation at EU level to discuss such matters as national and international security, whether or not we have common borders etc. But while we allow an unelected EU government of bureaucrats to dictate so many things that affect the minutiae of our lives we will never believe a government which says they believe in the Big Society.
Big Society is something that a rich people at leisure can undertake. Cut people’s money & time & it’s a busted flush.
I’d agree that many of the qualities of what you call the Big Society are already present and long-established. Self-reliance, service, charity, social entrepreneurialism, localism, community, philanthropy, volunteering, etc.
So, why the need for a new term to attempt to describe this? Indeed, why the need to ‘brand’ this?
I see absolutely no need to try to come up with a new phrase or term to describe these activities and qualities. So why spend so much time and effort (and presumably some money?) on parading this new phrase?
Consult the public: they know what a volunteer is, what charity involves, and the importance of local as well as national causes.
i think problem wi BSoc is ppl who want to volunteer already can. those who don’t want to/cant have no new reason to do so
But even of those who already do, if the cuts affect their personal circs they’ll have less time to do what they did.
or possibly a lot more time. but a lot less goodwill.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Nat Wei: What Big Society means -- Topsy.com
Danny Kruger has a thought-provoking article in the FT today on the Big Society and the difficulty of making a bigger economy AND a bigger society
Hi I’m a Lib Demmer who believes in the Big Society. But it’s disappointing that I signed up months ago and have not heard back
Nat,
I am dismayed whenever I read your pieces because of your complete lack of knowledge and experience in the field and your willingness to expound on it. What you will need to go away and reflect on is how your inept pronouncements have led to the undermining of the thing you purport to support.
I have worked in the sector for nearly 25 years and you have one of the worst cases of naive itis I have ever come across. You seek to give things a new name and think that you have discovered them. The first act describing charity was passed in was it 1602 or 1604. There have been volunteers and voluntary and community organisations for centuries – all that your wordy braindumping has done is distracted the government from strategically supporting a vulnerable sector. We are now about to see a level of destruction to the social capital of this country never before seen. You personally will bear some responsibility. You need to apologise and go and ask the experts.
#BigSociety. Lots of good stuff @PlatformTen, but I still cant work out how the concept can be turned into practical reality.
Here’s @NatWei’s response to the big society debate: http://bit.ly/dFL2r8 – skirts the question of the damage being done to society now
No, that’s not aside from volunteering, that’s what it’s supposed to achieve. Problem remains the same.
Nat Wei: What Big Society means http://t.co/APIyx6O <lovely stuff but as vague as ever.
Strong digital component to Nat Wei’s explanation of Big Society. http://t.co/SnAxYjm – platforms for civic action; harnessing technology
What Big Society Means http://t.co/APIyx6O <why frame it as reallocation of power? The demand side of responsibility is infinite
The three phase explanation is helpful. I can see that phase one has to be driven from the top, and phase three depends on a multitude of bottom-up actions. But how is the middle phase two to emerge?:
“The second phase is to encourage the development of platforms for civic action by public entrepreneurs – be they organisations, chains and franchises, or digital portals – that make it easier for citizens to come together, find out what they can get involved with, and make a start – and which help them overcome the constraints they face, whether relating to time, money, or place. So these might be chains of schools, or libraries, or timebanks, or ways of combing matched financial and other resources – harnessing technology, as well as local leadership.”
Is that spontaneous or guided, and built on existing civil society infrastructure … or are the cuts part of plan to reduce much of the current infrastructure?
Without explanation, suspicions grow, however unfounded.
And will citizens lose heart as they wait?
Most particularly, where can we have that conversation?
Dame Elizabeth Hoodless was asked on BBC Breakfast whether they were consulted about Big Society … yes, she said, on a couple of occasions, adding:
“We went to see Lord Wei about our Make a Difference Day, which involves nearly 70,000 volunteers every year, because he was planning Big Society Day – now we are told Big Society is off – it’s not easy to collaborate with the visionaries behind the Big Society.”
I personally don’t doubt that what you – and many other advocates – are saying is in good faith. Honestly. But it is *really* difficult to offer much support when the style is tell and sell, not engage and co-create. Or does government not have a role at least as facilitator?
Thanks Nat, good to have a bit more detail to work with. My interest is in how to “encourage the development of platforms for civic action by public entrepreneurs” (and have you just coined a new term “public enterprise” there?!). Bearing in mind the various criticisms and calls to action here and elsewhere (such as Adrian Brown’s here), what do you see as the next practical steps that need to be takento prepare for phase 2, and what can we do now to help?
Dear Nat Wei/all,
Of course we are (all) “motivated by vested interests” – in this case our interest is that we CARE what happens!
And as for the ‘myths’…..these look pretty real to me e.g. “getting volunteers to do the work” – is it not true that 4,500 of the Community Organisers (COs) are to be…….VOLUNTEERS?!
Finally, I find it offensive & repugnant (and dim) to deny the excellent (& continuing work of Community Development CD workers) across the country…which has a history of at least 40+ years.
CD + CO might just get us somewhere if only political expedience and a rush to reinvention didn’t get in the way.
There needs to be some consistency with other government policy – the changes to the health service puts the power into the hands of GPs many of whom will not live in their local areas. Why not put health services into the hands of local people? They are much more likely to understand public health issues such as the importance of decent houses and jobs for health and well-being – or are we still talking about a national sickness service?
The other issue is about equality of opportunity – having worked in communities for many years including my own it is very clear which people speak up and have control and which people don’t. Who will protect vulnerable people and ensure that their voices are heard?