Professional Documents
Culture Documents
review
March 2004
1. Introduction 2
the twin deficits of the public realm
2. A brief history 3
voluntary and community organisations in British social policy
3. Community as an idea 6
philosophical and empirical foundations
4. Community in operation 9
policy context and challenges since 1997
5. Harnessing community 15
four challenges
6. Meeting the challenge 16
a conceptual diamond
7. Conclusion 22
towards a research agenda
Such grand theorising may seem a long way away from the day-to-day
reality of local community-based organisations. It is not. Our contention is
that these organisations have the potential to narrow both deficits
simultaneously – to improve the quality of service delivery and promote
social inclusion and civic participation – if the right kinds of conditions can
be fostered at local and national level.
The 1945 welfare settlement committed the state to addressing the ‘five
giants’ identified in William Beveridge’s famous report: idleness, ignorance,
disease, squalor and want. It also laid the foundations for the construction of
the huge systems of organisation through which they were to be tackled: the
1
P Hall, ‘Social capital: a fragile asset’ in Perri 6 (ed.) The wealth and poverty of networks
Demos Collection 12 (London: Demos, 1997)
The Art of Association Page 3
NHS, social security, the schools system, social services, social housing and
so on. Although specific institutional designs varied by sector the
overarching organising principle was public ownership: they were owned,
run and financed by the state in some guise.
The previous 100 years are often seen as something of a golden age for local
voluntary and community organisations,3 in which Britain’s accelerating
industrial revolution created the first large-scale demand for social services
provision and, through the development of a vibrant voluntary sector, the
means by which it might be supplied.
2
N Timmins, The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State (London: HarperCollins,
1995)
3
e.g. R Whelan, Involuntary Action (London: Civitas, 1999)
The Art of Association Page 4
contribution to social cohesion and produced a widespread social and
political consensus on the need to make social justice a central goal of post-
war policy, and for the state to massively increase its role to achieving it.4
The post-war welfare consensus survived largely intact until the late 1970s,
when Britain’s continuing economic malaise prompted accusations that
excessive government spending and an overweening public sector were
‘crowding out’ productive enterprise,6 and led to the election of the
Conservatives on a radical platform of ‘rolling back the frontiers of the
state’.
4
Timmins, The Five Giants
5
M Harris and C Rochester, Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain
(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001)
6
R Bacon and W Eltis, Britain’s Economic Problem: Too Few Producers (London:
Macmillan, 1976)
7
Harris and Rochester,Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain
The Art of Association Page 5
agencies and competing against the private sector in the process also
transformed the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector. It
changed expectations of what the sector was for and what it should look like,
and fostered a creeping professionalisation and managerialisation which
continues to create tensions today.8
From the 1990s onwards, these developments have been shaped by the
rediscovery of ‘community’ as an idea and a site of political contest. After 45
years in which the central policy debate turned on the appropriate
configuration of state and market, community has been embraced as a third
and vitally important pillar in creating prosperity, upholding social order
and securing collective goods. Politicians of every stripe have been falling
over themselves to lay a claim to community as natural territory for their
parties or ideologies.9
But it is the second sense of community that has become more pervasive.
Community is usually a loaded term, and more often than not these
assumptions are positive. Community is seen to enable forms of social co-
ordination and collective action that are beyond the reach of the
unrestrained individualism of the market and the unwieldy, impersonal
hand of the state.
8
See, for example, H McCarthy, M Mean and T Bentley Inside Out: Rethinking Inclusive
Communities (London: Demos, 2003)
9
E.g. D Willets, ‘The Reality of Poverty’,
http://website.lineone.net/~renewing/dw_povty.htm; D Blunkett, Politics and Progress
(London: Demos/Politicos, 2002)
10
M Taylor, Public Policy in the Community (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)
The Art of Association Page 6
that where community bonds or social trust can be identified it will
necessarily translate into a willingness and capacity for agency – for the
community to take action on its own behalf.
Communitarianism
11
e.g. A Etzioni, The Spirit of Community (London: Fontana Press, 1995); M Sandel
Liberalism and the limits of justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); C
Taylor, Sources of the self : the making of the modern identity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989)
12
S Driver and L Martell, New Labour: Politics after Thatcherism (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1998) cited in Taylor, Public Policy in the Community
13
A Etizioni, The Third Way to a Good Society (London, Demos: 2000)
The Art of Association Page 7
reinvigorate the institutions that mediate between the individual and the
state as well as between the individual and the market, empowering
communities (often through more effective support to voluntary and
community groups) to tackle problems such as neighbourhood crime
without recourse to the formal powers of the state.14
Social capital
The substantial empirical claim made by Putnam and others is that this
decline in community ties and social trust is crucial because levels of social
14
See, for example, Etzioni, Spirit of Community. Note that in those societies where
individual rights are in danger of being suffocated by an over-bearing community, the
communitarian agenda would logically be in the opposite direction.
15
R Putnam, Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2000); Strategy Unit, Social Capital: a discussion paper (London: PIU
2002)
16
M Woolcock, ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes’, Canadian Journal of Policy Research (Spring 2001)
17
Halpern cited in Strategy Unit, Social Capital
18
R Putnam, ‘Bowling alone: America’s disintegrating social capital’ in Journal of
Democracy, 1995 vol. 6 no.1 pp.65-78; Putnam, Bowling Alone
The Art of Association Page 8
capital are closely linked to the production of all kinds of collective goods.
The term draws on the economist’s lexicon in order to make clear that social
capital is itself a factor in production – and one to which, until recently, we
have paid insufficient attention. Implicit in its very name therefore, is the
claim that, “controlling for other key variables, the well-connected are more
likely to be housed, healthy, hired and happy” (my emphasis).19
For this very reason, social capital is often seen as a panacea. While physical
capital is constantly visible, the intuitive vagueness and subtlety of social
capital allows it to become “all things to all men”.20 Indeed, a recent Strategy
Unit Discussion Paper on the subject notes that ‘the term “social capital” is
increasingly used by policymakers as another way of describing
“community”.21
Moreover, it is hard to clarify exactly what social capital consists of. Strictly
speaking, forms of capital admit of only quantitative (i.e. more or less) and
not qualitative (better or worse) change. We ought therefore to expect that,
other things being equal, as social capital increases quality of life should
improve. Yet one does not have to look very hard to see that this logic
(increasingly pervasive amongst policy-makers) is a massive over-
simplification. Unlike other kinds of capital, social capital is both an
individual and a collective good. Growth in the collective stock of social
capital at the level of a neighbourhood can be consistent with the exclusion
and disadvantage of individuals or whole communities.
19
Woolcock, ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes’
20
Ibid.
21
Strategy Unit, Social Capital
22
Putnam, Bowling Alone
The Art of Association Page 9
citizenship’ with new initiatives to encourage it; second, the creation of new
institutions, funding streams and ways of working that reflect the need to
‘empower communities’; and third, the increasing prominence of
‘community cohesion’ as a public policy goal.
Active citizens
23
A recent Home Office study found that 30 per cent of unemployed people had had any
involvement with formal volunteering in the last year, compared with 42 per cent of
employed people. In 1991, unemployed people were just as likely as employed people to be
involved in volunteering. Duncan Prime, Meta Zimmeck and Andrew Zurawan, Initial
Findings from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey (London: Home Office, 2002)
24
Institute for Volunteering Research, National Survey of Volunteering in the UK
(www.ivr.org.uk, 1997)
The Art of Association Page 10
which to model active citizenship and for students to become active
around.25 Teacher-led approaches to citizenship-related topics within the
classroom have predominated over participatory, active approaches.
Indeed, just 10% of pupils have been involved in school councils and the
take-up for activities such as mock elections is around 5 per cent.26
Moreover, an unintended consequence of open enrolment seems to have
been that children do not feel strong attachment to the community
surrounding either their school or their home,27 although encouragingly
British children seem to have above average levels of civic skills compared to
their contemporaries in other countries.28
Empowered communities
A raft of measures designed to ‘empower’ local people and build capacity for
local problem-solving have been introduced. In Bringing Britain Together
Tony Blair argued, “too much has been imposed from above, when
experience shows that success depends on communities themselves having
the power and taking the responsibility to make things better”.29
The government has established new revenue streams like the New Deal for
Communities and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, which circumvent
existing structures of local government and target resources more directly at
local communities. The New Opportunities Fund has been introduced to
supplement the Community Fund in directing a greater share of the
proceeds of the National Lottery towards community causes.
Yet the Blair government has always seen its role as going far beyond the
provision of funds to community and voluntary organisations. From the
outset, ministers took seriously the idea that it was important to create
successful connections at the local, neighbourhood and national levels
between the different actors, agencies and institutions involved in local
communities and service delivery – including local people themselves.30 In
this vein, for example, the institutional architecture of central government
25
C Jones, Leading Learners, Demos, 2004
26
D Kerr, E Cleaver, and E Ireland, Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study: First year
findings (NfER, 2003)
27
A Dyson et al, Schools and Area Regeneration (London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
2003)
28
T-P Lehman, H Oswald,. and W Schulz, Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight
Countries: Civic Knowledge and Participation at Age Fourteen (IEA, 2001)
29
Social Exclusion Unit, Bringing Britain Together ( www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk, 1998)
30
P 6, Holistic government (London: Demos, 1997)
The Art of Association Page 11
has been reshaped with the creation of the Social Exclusion and, later,
Neighbourhood Renewal Units,31 and a new emphasis of the importance of
community as a cross-cutting theme within the Home Office.32 The
Neighbourhood Renewal Unit brought with it Local Strategic Partnerships
(LSPs) as ‘the key local vehicle for implementing and leading
neighbourhood renewal’. The Modernising Government white paper made
joint working a priority for all spending reviews.33 The introduction of the
Single Regeneration Budget aimed to rationalise government investment
spending. Sure Start centres in disadvantaged communities sought to range
public provision around the needs of young families. Education and health
‘action zones’ were established to break new ground in local collaboration in
service delivery.
However, the task of joining-up proved a good deal more difficult than
expected, as the disappointing performance of the action zones
demonstrates. Despite the freedom they were given, they did not involve
new partners or develop new working practices to the extent that was
hoped.34 Indeed, as Geddes observes, ‘neat new integrated structures can
improve relationships between sectors without benefiting excluded groups
at all’.35
31
http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk ; http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk
32
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/aims/index.html
33
Cabinet Office, Modernising government White Paper presented to Parliament by the
Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office Cm. 4310 (London: Stationery
Office, 1999)
34
For example, see OFSTED, Excellence in Cities and Education Action Zones: Management
and Impact (www.ofsted.gov.uk, 2003)
35
Quoted in M Taylor, Public Policy in the Community (Palgrave, 2003)
36
P 6, D Leat, K Seltzer and G Stoker, Governing in the Round: Strategies for Holistic
Government (London: Demos, 1999)
37
D Wilkinson and E Appelbee, Implementing Holistic Government (Bristol: Policy
Press/Demos 1999)
The Art of Association Page 12
inclusion that truly began with the community rather than professionals in
service organisations often remained elusive.
Target-setting has not been the only cause for concern. The understandable
desire for accountability and legitimacy has resulted in heavy reliance on
‘consultation’. Yet many public service professionals fear that their efforts to
consult and work with members of local community involve the ‘usual
suspects’.39
Cohesive communities
For many, these incidents illustrate the ‘dark side’ of social capital – the
intense production of social capital within particular groups can be a recipe
38
6 et al, Implementing holistic government
39
Taylor, Public Policy in the Community
The Art of Association Page 13
for social disintegration rather than cohesion if it is at the expense of
connections between them.40 This is a result of the close relationship
between social capital and social closure. The more two people have in
common - geography, family, occupation, demography - the more likely
they are to form what Marc Granovetter in a seminal contribution described
as ‘strong ties’.41 As they do so, this tie will become increasingly constitutive
of their shared identity. They will define themselves as an ‘us’, as against the
‘them’ that surrounds them. In turn, the bonds internal bonds will tend to
strengthen still further, and some external bonds will start to weaken. The
kind of exclusivity that this can create in strong ties is very often part of their
value. For example, familial and marriage bonds are often crucially
dependent on exclusivity. The perspective of social capital illustrates that
this is part of a broader, more fluid picture, in which problems of individuals
and communities excluding themselves are as important as their exclusion
at the hands of others.42
As a result, many have argued that communities, like pressure groups, need
a mixture of ‘insider and outsider strategies’.43 Communities need a mixture
of strong ties within them and weak ties that reach beyond them, drawing in
information and resources. Putnam has presented this in terms of a
combination of ‘bridging’ (between groups) and ‘bonding’ (within groups)
social capital. Similarly, Granovetter’s work showed the importance of
‘weak ties’ in finding employment, because this provided access to different
sources of information (e.g. tips about new job opportunities)44 which
members of the same group (i.e. those with whom one has strong ties)
would not possess.
40
For an account of the riots, see the Report of the Independent review Team (the Cantle
Report) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/community_cohesion.pdf
41
M Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78
(1973), No. 6: 1360-1380
42
For example, see S Ball, S Bowe, and S Gewirtz, ‘Circuits of schooling: a sociological
exploration of parental choice of school in social class contexts’, Sociological Review (43) 1,
pp 52-78.
43
Taylor, Public Policy in the Community
44
Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties”
The Art of Association Page 14
Harnessing community: four challenges
This foregoing analysis points towards four crucial tensions with which we
must grapple if we are to harness the potential of community in overcoming
the twin deficits described at the beginning of this paper.
45
T Skocpol, Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic
Life (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2003)
46
R John, Spreading the News: The American Postal System From Franklin to Morse
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)
The Art of Association Page 15
such organisations are expected to observe. Yet community and voluntary
groups are much more than this – they are an integral and essential
component of democratic participation. Indeed they are generative of
democracy; they resemble, in de Tocqueville’s words, “great free schools to
which all citizens come to be taught the general theory of association”.47
Fourth, we must be wary of the ‘dark side’ of community and social capital
and think about ways in which the legitimacy and accountability of
community-based organisations and activities can be created and
maintained, without imposing undue burdens.
In thinking about how the challenge these tensions present, four concepts
may be helpful. None is a panacea, and we have deliberately resisted the
temptation to go into detailed policy prescription at this stage. But taken
together, this conceptual diamond is a useful way of interrogating the
tensions and the potential opportunities for resolving them. The four
concepts are:
Network governance
Personalisation
Network governance
47
A de Tocqueville, Democracy in America translated by H Reeve (London : Saunders &
Otley, 1835)
The Art of Association Page 16
responsible for, each other’.48 This emphasis on our mutual interdependence
is a founding tenet of the ‘governance paradigm’ in the social sciences. The
common theme is an interest in explaining changing patterns of governing
that do not rest on the traditional authority of the state, and which instead
involve institutions drawn from within but also beyond government. The
public/private divide is seen to have grown increasingly fuzzy as new ways of
organising and delivering services have emerged which downgrade the role
of the state as sole provider and seek to draw community and voluntary
organisations (as well as private companies) into complex networks of
provision cutting across traditional institutional boundaries or categories.49
Finally, governance emphasises the capacity for public policy to ‘steer’ the
behaviour of these networks and the actors that compose them rather than
to intervene in or control them directly.50
The first is that right across public service provision the participation of
citizens and users has become increasingly central to their legitimacy. Box
identifies four eras of control in public organisations: elite control;
democracy; professionalism; and the emerging era of citizen governance.51
Community-based organisations are potentially well-placed to benefit from
this growing emphasis on the involvement of users/citizens in that they are
typically more permeable and situated closer to local people than
professionalised public sector organisations. But as the basis of legitimacy
48
M McCluhan, quoted in T Bentley and J Wilsdon (eds.) The Adaptive State: Strategies for
Personalising the Public Realm (London: Demos, 2003)
49
G Stoker, ‘Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social Science Journal,
No 155, March 1998, pp17-28
50
J Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance: new government-society interactions (London:
SAGE Publications, 1993)
51
R Box, Citizen governance: leading American communities into the 21st century (London:
SAGE, 1998)
The Art of Association Page 17
shifts from expert knowledge to local participation, it will be necessary to
ensure that the process is not susceptible to being dominated by a cadre of
‘usual suspects’.
The second is that the concept suggests a way by which legitimacy could be
based less on procedure than on outcome, and less on a judgement by a
funding body or public agency than through a process analogous to ‘peer
review’ in academic research. At one extreme at present, managerialist
approaches like the contemporary approach to performance management in
the public services tend to suffocate innovation by forcing community
organisations to fit in with standards determined by the centre. At the other
end of the spectrum, unconstrained innovation in which community
organisations were encouraged to just do whatever they liked might see the
creation of a great many unconnected activities that did not have the
requisite legitimacy in the eyes of the community, did not learn from each
other, or did not generate wider benefits beyond their initial impact. Indeed,
often the complaint within communities is this idea that people no longer
know what is happening, or what other local activities or opportunities exist.
Collective efficacy
Yet this does not entirely resolve concerns about social capital’s dark side.
Even with a stricter definition of social capital, the fact that groups like the
Ku Klux Klan or criminal networks like the mafia can be productive of high
levels of social capital and highly damaging social outcomes is problematic.
52
For more on this idea in the context of education, see D Hargreaves, Education Epidemic:
Transforming secondary schools through innovation networks (London: Demos, 2003)
The Art of Association Page 18
We know that neither family nor geography are as dominant as they used to
be in the development of communities. As traditional community forms
decline, today’s communities are increasingly composed of strong and weak
ties. However, the problems of many disadvantaged communities remain.
Sampson connects the trust and cohesion associated with social capital to
‘shared expectations for control as neighborhood’ (our emphasis). In the
case of community safety, for example, past experiences of violence and
crime can reduce the expected success of activating community networks.
This is the first way in which the concept of ‘collective efficacy’ shows how
the narrative about social capital that has been so dominant in recent years
is best understood as underlining rather than eroding the importance of
more formal organisations. The work of community and voluntary
organisations can help to create and sustain the positive expectations of
collective effort that activate social networks.
Personalisation
The challenges facing community and voluntary organisations is, in fact, the
creation of infrastructure within which community creation will be possible.
As Stephen Burke argues, ‘if you look at most communities, the only
common elements now are the primary school, the GP’s surgery and maybe
a faith group and that’s probably about it’.56
53
M Castells, The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996)
54
S Zuboff and J Maxmin, The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Failing Individuals
and the Next Stage of Capitalism (London: Allen Lane, 2002)
55
W Davies, You don’t know me but …Social Capital and Social Software
(www.theworkfoundation.com, 2003)
56
The Henley Centre, The Responsibility Gap (2003)
The Art of Association Page 20
Increasingly, enabling active citizenship is about structuring individual
choices in a way that generates rather than corrodes shared capacity, and in
turn community. In a forthcoming article, Tom Bentley argues that this
requires that we discard the traditional distinction between consumers and
citizens, since this relies on a false assumption that different personal
choices can be somehow contained within specific spheres.57 Instead we
need to reach for a conception of citizenship in which the desire to be
authors of our own lives and surroundings is connected to an institutional
infrastructure that makes this possible in the civic and social sphere as much
as the marketplace.
Co-production
57
T Bentley, ‘The self-creating society’, Renewal Vol. 12 Forthcoming
The Art of Association Page 21
training while in prison were three times more likely to be reconvicted than
those who had.58
58
Quoted in Social Exclusion Unit, Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners
(www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk, 2002)
59
D Cutler, Taking the Initiative: promoting young people’s involvement in public decision
making in the UK (Carnegie Young Peoplpe Initiative, 2002)
The Art of Association Page 22
crucial in addressing the twin deficits of the public realm with which this
paper began.
We have also highlighted four tensions that stand in the way of addressing
these deficits, including:
o The idea (and ideal) of community that currently permeates the
debate, which is not necessarily plausible or attainable given
wider social, economic and political changes;
o The true relationship between the state and community-based
organisations, which is much more complex, interdependent and
symbiotic than is sometimes presented and must be carefully
analysed and nurtured;
o The danger of trying to remake community organisations in a
professionalised, managerial image, through undue emphasis on
their functional identity as providers of services at the expense of
their deeper role in promoting participation;
o The potential ‘dark side’ of community and social capital, and the
need to promote legitimacy and accountability without imposing
unreasonable demands or prioritising the wrong kinds of
procedures.
And we have suggested four concepts that may help us to think about how
these tensions could be overcome:
o Network governance: in a more fluid institutional environment,
we need to think about approaches to funding, accountability
and service provision that allow community organisations to
thrive;
o Collective efficacy: we need to see the role that community and
voluntary organisations play in creating and sustaining positive
expectations of collective effort, which is more important in
increasing local problem-solving capacity than social capital;
o Personalisation: we need to understand the importance of
identifying, engaging and empathising with individuals’ personal
needs, aspirations and narratives instead of organising provision
around the functional categories of traditional professionalised
services;
o Co-production: we need to recognise that the quality of public
goods like health and safe neighbourhoods depends as much on
The Art of Association Page 23
the active consent and participation of citizens as it does on the
performance of formal public service institutions.