Big society....Part 3!.....
on Jana Gana Mana (India), 21/Jan/2011 06:22, 34 days ago
For those still with me - and following my stream of thought......!So in many instances it seems that the social sector acts as a significant stimulus and as a provider of public goods and services. This is perhaps because the local state maybe either does not have the resources or is maybe suffering from its overly bureaucratic systems and processes, but certainly unlike the UK there's never really been large scale, welfare focussed spending.Consequently, the social sector has a higher degree of awareness and consciousness as regards the need to get things done. For instance, on my study tour, I visited the Siruthuli Water Project - a project funded by charitable donations and community work that has renovated the 9 reservoir tanks that feed water to Coimbatore. Siruthuli believe that‘people make a city’, and that Coimbatore is an ‘entrepreneurial city’, and tapping into this the project – started in 2003 – fulfilled a public and economic need for enhancing the water storage capacity of the city. The initial issue was recognised by residents, businesses and government, but the project relied on residents and businesses for funding as government didn’t have the resources. They successfully tapped into a ‘collective consciousness’, galvanising ‘people power’, for the benefit of providing the most basic resource for residents but also in terms of wealthcreation and the activities of business and the textile industries of the region.Furthermore, the RAAC (Residents’ Awareness Association of Coimbatore) aims to get citizens, commerce, property owners etc to contribute to healthy living for all. RAAC has about 400 individual members with direct involvement, and about 120 residence colonies right across the city, each of up to 500 houses, with about 40 per cent of people getting involved in some way. They are proactive in Development Control – adopting a Masterplanning approach. This involves building regulations and rules and rights to information, again providing a social service, but also assisting in developing a framework for economic success.Some projects (e.g. cleaning a government hospital, cleaning up a fish market) should perhaps to my western eye be the responsibility of the Municipal or District Authorities. However, resource limitations meant this could not be done effectively. RAAC organised the projects initially and then prompted and cajoled the city government to also act. Of course their motivation in doing this was due to a crisis. However, in speaking with them, this is not a source of discord or even a significant problem. It is merely viewed as the state of the affairs and therefore a valid activity by the social sector.In our study tour conclusions, we produced a concept whereby we attempted to come to a view about the impact of the commercial, social and public economy of a place. Although we didn’t go so far as determining the precise scale, what we did identify is the need to have a balance between the three:Too much Government leads to a stifling of innovation and a lack of 'space' for the private or social and community sector to flourish......too much commercial and growth occurs in a haphazard fashion and the benefits of growth aren’t shared.So, getting to my point….although I believe there are many merits in the BS (Sir Humphrey was surely aware of that abbreviation?) concept, the ‘state' cannot simply withdraw overnight and expect individuals and communities to pick up the pieces.Although I am several thousands of miles away, I am of course keeping a close watch on events– both locally and nationally and it appears that the real appetite for testing out the BS concept seems weak. To use a childhood analogy, Government seems afraid to take the stabilisers off the bike. We would rather take the bike away altogether and rely on the parent providing transport, but right now the parents can’t afford to have a car and their children won’t know how to get themselves anywhere.Maybe this is missing the point and the first question to be answered is whether we believe that individuals and communities have the capability to take greater control over their lives and be more independent? Secondly, if the answer is yes, should we assume that the more people do for themselves, the less the state will do, and therefore the less this will cost the state.Thirdly, and if the logic is so far sound, why do we think it is so difficult to stimulate a greater sense of ownership and responsibility among individuals and within communities? Is it because the government fundamentally does not want them to? Or is it that after the last 50 years of increasing government influence and changing patterns in our society that we no longer have the capability?I think i'll leave it there for now...and reflect on your comments!!