I have just come back from Finland where I gave a talk to SDP members and NGO leaders about debates in British politics and especially the concepts of the “big society” and the “good society”. The “big society” is the brainchild of “Red Tory” Phillip Blond and is a very intriguing analysis of what he thinks went wrong with left-wing statism and what he calls state-enabled market fundamentalism. Picked up by new Labour leader Ed Miliband, the “good society”, which was introduced a few years ago by Compass and developed on an international stage by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stoftung and ourselves here at Social Europe Journal, is seeking to redefine social democracy.
Reading some of Blond’s articles and speeches has prompted me to buy his book to drill deeper into his thinking but I wanted to share some initial thoughts about what I consider to be similarities and important differences between the “big” and the “good” society. I agree with 50% of Blond’s problem analysis and the main thrust of his solution. I disagree with the other half of his analysis and some of the solution details. Let me explain.
In terms of the analysis of market fundamentalism and its consequences for society and communities Blond is on the same page as most social democrats when he criticises the effects of Thatcherite economics and its New Labour heirs. New Labour was clearly much better than a conservative government – as we can see now! – but did not transform the basic economic philosophy. I agree. So far so good.
Maybe unsurprisingly where I think Blond gets it wrong is when he attacks the role and impact of the state and the welfare state in particular. Leaving aside all the other important state functions, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the welfare state has been more a ceiling blocking upward mobility than a floor preventing the fall into the abyss. Blond seems to be talking about problematic incentive structures in welfare states and I don’t deny that there have been problems. This, however, is not a reason to blame half the defects of society on the welfare state. On the contrary, the welfare state is widely acknowledged – maybe more in continental Europe than in Britain – to have fulfilled its main functions quite well. And incentive problems can often be corrected if they are analysed correctly. Let me give you an example.
When the Hartz IV reforms were introduced in Germany one widely discussed incentive problem was the gap between benefit levels and low wages. Why would somebody get off the dole and accept a job if the financial benefit is marginal or non-existent? I agree that this gap is a problem but the acknowledgement of this can lead to two alternative solutions: either the lowering of the benefit level or the raising of the low wage. Which one is right?
Whereas the former was much more widely called for, I think the latter is the correct solution. If you look at the development of the share of wages in relation to economic growth and corporate profit you can easily see that this share has been declining across the board for many years. In result, this incentive problem to my mind is a defect of wealth distribution in the economy rather than a structural dysfunctionality of the welfare state. Blaming the welfare state is thus misguided.
Furthermore, I think Blond’s account of the relationship between the state, markets and civil society is erroneous. Whereas in terms of agents and aims there is a clear distinction between markets and the state, the relationship between state and civil society is symbiotic rather than opposing (there is also something to be said about the civil society – market relationship but I’ll leave this out here). A well-functioning democratic state is the political expression of civil society and not a suppressing force. And although this political conveyor belt doesn’t always work the way it should, it doesn’t change the fact that the agents and aims of the state are by and large determined by civil society through political competition and elections.
So much for the problem analysis. What about the solutions?
Blond’s cure for society’s ills is the civic state, which is meant to replace the failed welfare and market states. Essentially, the civic state means empowering civil society through the relocalisation of the economy, addressing issues of ownership and stake-holding, the recapitalisation of the poor and the remoralisation of markets. Blond also puts a big emphasis on the revival of faith and family values. In his suggestions he is generally very close to what my colleague Maurice Glasman has coined “Blue Labour”.
Whereas I am not sure whether a new emphasis on family (in the sense of close and lasting personal relationships) must also mean a renewed emphasis on marriage and religion (my feeling is rather not), there is no doubt that the redevelopment of social ties, communities and local culture on all levels is absolutely necessary.
When it comes to practical steps to change the nature of political economy, Blond’s solutions remind me an awful lot of systems that have been successful elsewhere in Europe for decades. For instance involving workers and stake-holders in decision-making because they often know better than detached managers is exactly what is at the core of the system of co-determination. The remoralisation and relocation of markets is another version of what social democracy has known as the “embedded market”: one-size fits all market fundamentalism doesn’t work. Markets work best for the needs of people if they are embedded into strong locally sensitive social and cultural institutions and frameworks. The list of similarities could be easily extended.
So in a nutshell, where are the similarities and differences of the “big society” to the emerging “good society” concept? In terms of the problem analysis the issues about the market state are shared, the analysis of the welfare state is not. When it comes to the solution, the revival of civil society and localism must also be part of the “good society”, the more conservative elements, such as the emphasis on marriage and religion, not necessarily. Strong and lasting social ties can certainly be created through religion and marriage but those are not the only ways and we shouldn’t grant moral exclusivity.
The most important difference between the concepts in my view lies in the interpretation of the relationship between the three elements of public life: state, market and civil society. Whereas Blond seems to argue that the former two have failed and it is now time to focus on the third element, most social democrats would argue that politics should be about the creation of a system, in which all three dimensions work together towards social, economic and environmental progress. It is not about overemphasising one dimension at the expense of the other two. Even though the calibration of the relationships needs to be adjusted from time to time, social democracy is about making all three dimensions work in harmony.
Although I have just started to read Blond’s full account of the “big society” in his book “Red Tory”, Jon Cruddas is absolutely right to argue that social democracy has to deal with the “big society” concept and explain where the similarities and differences to the “good society” are. The “big society” and “Blue Labour” are important intellectual contributions even though I think that last week’s spending review has made sure that the “big society” is not the future of conservative politics in the UK.
No related posts.
All Content
That's one way of looking at it, but there are some further aspects – in terms of looking forward and looking back – when it comes to Big Society that you might additionally have a look at. I've alluded to some of them here.
Thanks for the link Jon. As you know I am a tech-phile and want to use the advantages of the internet to the full. But I think the big society and the community aspect of the good society is largely offline. As I understand it, it is not about virtual connections but the physical ties between people and communities. Virtual communities can support but not replace this. We have to rebuild the physical communities in my view.
I agree with most of what you say, but having worked in a local civil society group for a number of years, the state in its many aspects was more often a hindrance than a help. In its current form the state is a self sustaining hugely inefficient monolith, justifying itself by its own failures. I cant see how it would be possible to reform it without totally changing the political system that produces such an outcome, and that in my view can only start from the bottom; that is from civil society and a true relocalisation of politics.