citizen participation

Taking Power Back: Review by CURA

abuaro01

Professor Jonathan Davies and Dr Adrian Bua from CURA respond to Simon Parker’s  previous  blog where he explained the argument of his recent book ‘Taking Power Back‘. This blog will be followed over the next few weeks with a reply by Simon.

Taking Power Back is written as a provocation – a manifesto for change – at a moment when the ruthlessly centralising tradition of British politics is under greater critical scrutiny than ever before. As Simon Parker explains in his blog post, current levels of centralisation in British politics are unsustainable and the call for radical decentralisation, driven by the social action of place-based individuals and communities is timely.  Moreover, Simon argues that with the end of austerity nowhere in sight, the halcyon days of the welfare state are in any case well and truly over. Something has to be done.

Simon’s alternative is encapsulated in the idea of ‘commonism’, a new kind of society based on self-help and mutual aid enabled by a more local, relational and supportive state, rather than the over-bearing centralised behemoth developed since the post war era. Simon thinks that we are moving into a conjuncture more favourable to commonism, as experiments proliferate and the state slowly and reluctantly begins to show awareness of its limitations. In his analysis, the push for devolution and localism is more than a mere straw in the wind.   The wave of city deals, with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority at the forefront (which Simon discusses at length) signals an opportunity to develop the ‘commonist’ agenda and forge a path to a more decentralised and democratic polity.  Taking Power Back is at once resolutely pragmatic and visionary.  Commonism is not communism, a system that envisions the entire system of production, distribution and exchange socialised and democratised.  Rather, the practices of commoning sit in a nebulous and uneasy relationship with state and market.  It rests tacitly on re-working the classic state-market-civil society triad.

However, preoccupation with the critique of statism means the triad is never adequately discussed.  For example, Simon is very reticent about markets, corporations and economic crises. Contemporary political economy tells us that states and markets are deeply inter-dependent. Much of what states do in the 21st century is about extending the reach of the profit economy.  Take austerity, a policy regime Simon tends to take for granted: it undermines the resources of localism in ways that seem destined to shrivel the commons.  First, we know that cuts in state funding drive local community organisations to the wall.  Second, government contracts are deeply biased towards corporate contractors and large extra-local civil society organisations (the so-called “primes”), and against local organisations.  Third, austerity welfare and its extraordinarily punitive sanctioning regime so envelops and bureaucratises the lives of millions of unemployed and working poor citizens, that it is hard to envisage them finding the time or cognitive space to do any volunteering or commoning.

These deeply reactionary trends arguably diminish the space for commoning, but perhaps more importantly they point to a huge oversight in Simon’s analysis.  Taking Power Back will not be accomplished by going with the flow, it can only be a deeply conflictual process oriented to reversing malign trends in our society – the expansion of markets and corporations, the boa-constrictor of state regulation and the predatory character of civil society “primes”, all of which conspire to corrode the local and the democratic. Simon’s call for a universal wage (or basic income) to unlock commoning capacity is an acceptance that sharpening inequalities need to be addressed.  Yet, it is hard to see how this can be accomplished without, at the very least, reversing austerity and in the process taking on recalcitrant interests throughout the state, market and corporatised civil society sectors.

Viewed through this lens, the current devolution and localism agendas are deeply problematic, accentuating anti-democratic developments antithetical to ‘commonism’.

Simon acknowledges the anti-democratic manner in which “Devo Manc” was accomplished – a deal struck between local and central state elites. Moreover, greater local responsibility for allocating a shrinking budget presided over by boosterist metro-mayors is no basis for a flourishing municipal commons, particularly under a grossly punitive benefits regime over which the centre exercises an iron grip. This is compounded by declining standards in what researchers at ‘Manchester Capitalism’ have called the ‘foundational economy’. This consists precisely of those businesses and services to meet the basic needs that are the bread and butter of ‘commonism’, yet, the foundational is increasingly beset by casualised work, and operates as a cash cow for big business.

As Simon recognises, under capitalism, technological innovation and productivity do not usher in a world of leisure. They rather concentrate power in the hands of techno-elites and shrink the labour market.  Nowhere is the dystopian character of the digital age clearer than in San Francisco, where the predatory elites of Silicon Valley make the city unliveable for working class people and complain at having to look at the human refuse left in their wake.

We live in a world of confected scarcity (austerity) and ever-rising inequality in a highly precarious global economic conjuncture. Simon is right that a flourishing commons depends on greater equality, in a world of plenty.  But there is a vast gap between our world and the world of the Morrisonian commons.  Taking Power Back offers a welcome stimulus to those thinking about how a better world might come into being. Simon’s wager is that examples of commoning in action can be pedagogic in the sense of showcasing the virtues of “commonism” to all, at a time when elites seem a little more aware of their limitations.  Our concern is that these are not the most powerful trends in our society. It is hard to see the pursuit of social justice as anything other than an elemental struggle in the 21st century, without which new political economies of solidarity will remain confined to the margins.

Professor Jonathan Davies is director and Dr Adrian Bua a core member of the Centre for Urban Research on Austerity

Taking Power Back: Simon Parker

abuaro01

We are pleased to launch our book debates series with this blog by Simon Parker. Simon sets out the argument of his recent book ‘Taking Power Back’, where he makes the case for ‘commonism’ – a radical form of democratic decentralisation. Following this post, CURA members Professor Jonathan Davies and Dr Adrian Bua will share their thoughts on Simon’s work, after which Simon will publish a reply to our team’s commentary.

The British state stands poised at a moment of profound change. Caught between the demands of an ageing population and a limited public willingness to pay more tax, public services are under pressure as never before. Institutions from local government to the NHS are finding that their existing models of provision cannot cope with the strain. Something has to give.

Despite our self-image as swashbuckling Anglo-Saxon capitalists, the British are actually fairly statist. Until recently we had a large, highly centralised government machine which we expected to deliver the same outcomes to everyone across the country. We tend to see the world in terms of the market and state, without very much in between. The fact that both of these leviathans have let us down very badly in the recent past explains our national distrust of institutions.

And yet there is something in between state and market – a space for social activity that many people call ‘the commons’. Over the past decade or so we have seen this space being steadily filled by a remarkable flourishing of cooperatives and social enterprises. In my book, Taking Power Back, I argue that this vibrant realm of do-it-yourself social justice is vital to the way we should understand the future of government. We can already see examples of it in action. In my book I describe how initiatives in the UK and beyond such as Occupy Sandy, the extraordinary people-powered disaster relief operation in post-hurricane New York, are building on, and organising, people power to meet their needs and improve lives – without relying on the market or state action

The trends which the World Economic Forum bundles together in its concept of the Fourth Industrial Revolution will turbo-charge the commons over the next decade or two. This is partly because new technology is making it easier than ever to start to up small social organisations. The overhead costs of creating a company are falling, while the potential to create innovative networked business models is rising. The increasing automation of our jobs may create a world in which we spend less time working creating increased opportunities to transfer effort out of the realm of paid work and into the creative sphere of the commons.

It seems entirely credible that the space vacated by a retreating state could be filled at least partially by a surge in the creative commons. I the book I make the case for two very big changes that can facilitate this transition. First, we will need to support the commons by introducing a universal basic income, compensating people for the automation of work and giving them the time to contribute. Second, we need to radically devolve political power so it is closer citizens, giving individuals the opportunities and capacity they need to help build the civic commons in the places where they live.

It is a huge challenge, but the prize is a radical renewal of government and democracy, in Britain and beyond.

Simon Parker is director of the New Local Government Network and a leading expert in public policy, public services and government.

Participatory Budgeting: Shining light on the well manicured hands on the public purse.

abuaro01

Jez Hall from the Participatory Budgeting Network argues that the costs are spiralling of a public service culture that is focussed on acute interventions, increasingly relies on private delivery and is driven by the interests of professionals. He argues that participatory budgeting is a tool that can deliver fiscal responsibility and make services more focussed around the needs of citizens.

Advocates for more citizen participation usually discuss Participatory Budgeting, (and similar ideas for direct democracy) as a democratic enhancement – something about fixing democracy, trusting in politics or getting involved. It is as though involvement is the aim.

But a too often undervalued dimension is the cost benefit of participation. We live in expensive bureaucratic systems, where the recurring costs of services make no sense to ordinary people. I believe we need to raise the debate when looking at the different public service choices. Because, from observing Participatory Budgeting  (PB) in action, when given a choice, and good information, and a chance to deliberate ordinary citizens back prevention over an often ridiculous status quo that wastes money and blights lives by focussing on the wrong end of the system. When there is pressure on public budgets it matters who has a say, and who sets the agenda.

Here’s an interesting set of statistics:

“It costs £65,000 to imprison a person in this country once police, court costs and all the other steps are taken into account. After that it costs a further £40,000 for each year they spend incarcerated.” £100,000 for a one year prison sentence. Once you have been into prison you are pretty likely to return. Or suffer limited employment opportunities for your whole life, and you and your family more likely to become dependent on welfare.

Private sector outsourced care for at risk young people can be much expensive and the outcomes often little better. “There are differing views amongst commissioners about the relative costs of their own children’s homes provision to those of the external providers. The DfE Children’s Homes data pack (December 2014) concluded that average unit costs are … around £2,900 per week”. A 2013 survey indicated the most common cost of high intensity outsourced care was £3,000 per week, rising in rare cases to £6,000 per week. That equates to between £150,000 to £300,000 per year.

Then, at the other end of the spectrum, it costs about £5,000 per year to provide a school place in a city like Manchester. So one year of a young person attending school costs about the same as spending 2 weeks in prison, or maybe just a week in intensive residential care.

In health the story is much the same. The unit cost of attending an A&E department is far higher than seeing a GP or community based health worker. This statistic is out of date but still relevant. In 2010 to walk through the door of an A+E department for a brief consultation cost over £125. That’s before receiving any treatment. Yet I, and probably most citizens of the UK, used to free at the point of delivery healthcare, are horrified by the prospect of paying £25 to see a GP, as proposed by the Kings Fund in a report in 2014. “An influential think-tank has recommended the Government considers charging patients up to £25 for a GP appointment, becoming the latest in a series of recent reports mooting the controversial move.”

Best keep people out of prison, hospital and children’s homes then. That requires prevention, something that can only be effectively delivered outside these expensive institutions and within communities. Neighbourliness, good employment, education, and stable families matter a lot, but sometimes it takes professional support to prevent the most at risk going off the rails.

Now, I wonder how much employing a trained youth worker costs? The answer is “around £21,000 a year” – rising to about £35k max – there will be some on-costs on that basic figure, but it gives us a perspective.

And a prison governor earns upward of £180,000 for a difficult high security prison, but more normally “salaries for qualified operational managers start at £32,000 a year, while more senior managers (including governors) can earn around £60,000 pa. It’s a professional salary, but hardly ‘riches beyond the dreams of avarice’… Of course, there are other benefits, including a civil service pension.” A judge earns £130,000 or so. And judges are most unhappy about it. “Almost a third of judges, 31%, said they would consider leaving early in the next five years. The proportion was even higher for high court and appeal court judges. Declines in pay and pensions were the main complaints. Nearly four-fifths said incomes now and after retirement do not adequately reflect the work they do and that they had suffered a loss of net earnings over the past five years.”

It’s tough looking down on society from the top. If the people involved in commissioning services are the people already managing, running or benefiting, there is an obvious bias to backing their own professional approach. That isn’t corruption. It’s human nature. Yet, however well intentioned and informed they may be, it is a capturing of the system by those already benefiting most from it. As a leading public health manager for a big city once said to me “prisons exist to pay for prison staff pensions, and hospitals to pay for consultants golf club memberships”.

This might be a little unfair. But if you care, and professionals in the public sector do care, without a robust process of challenge there is no strong incentive to reduce one’s own role. We have become wedded to expensive sticking plasters that may contain but don’t prevent problems. This was clearly identified in a 2011 report on the future of Scottish public services that raised the problem of ‘producer dominance’. Basically public sector commissioners, left to their own devices, prioritise existing approaches, and de-prioritise prevention. “Government remains the dominant architect and provider of public services. This often results in ‘top-down’, producer- and institution-focussed approaches where the interests of organisations and professional groups come before those of the public.”

Maybe PB can shine a light on that problem – and save taxpayers a bit of money. Putting one less person in prison for a year could pay for at least 3 youth work posts – and who knows how many hundreds of hours of volunteer time at a community based youth club. Each youth worker, properly supported, could prevent a young person being abused, or going to jail. If they stopped just one conviction or referral per year each, then prevention is still a great investment.

Of course there may be lots of solutions, like funding voluntary and community sector providers. Though we need to be careful. The lesson of the Kids Company is that these decisions can’t just be left to politicians either. “Despite lacking robust evidence about the quality of the charity’s outcomes, value for money or governance, Kids Company attracted high profile support from senior Ministers throughout successive Governments, and tens of millions of pounds of public money have been handed to the charity over the course of its existence”.[1]

Whilst I believe in high quality, preventative public spending, that doesn’t mean the money can’t go outside the public sector. But when it does, either to ‘not for profits’, or private sector provision citizens need to be aware of the cost and benefit of that choice. If they were, I doubt that private financing would be as widespread as it is, given its costly nature.

Participation is not just about validating pre-determined choices of so called experts. It is about deliberating between options, suggesting new approaches and making more informed choices. So let’s have a better approach than tick box consultations. Let’s shine a light on some of these costs. Open up how we make these decisions and let the people decide?

Jez Hall is a founding member of Shared Futures. Jez helped found the PB Unit in 2006 and has since then remained a committed advocate of Participatory Budgeting.