Community development and Small State

'Big Society' is an imposed brand and for me gives rise to the same sort of resistance that a commercial advertising campaign would generate. But those who claim that it is nothing more than branding are not quite right. In spite of the coalition's coyness about policy, there have been policy assertions and it's appropriate to examine them. CDF's Mel Bowles has rolled up her sleeves and done just that from a community development perspective, in a measured, questioning recent paper available (if barely discoverable) on the CDX site.

She quite rightly highlights the distinction between politicised and non-politicised community work. Community organisers under Small State will not be expected to support local people in fighting to protect or gain access to existing services:

‘Neighbourhood groups will be expected to develop (additional or alternative) public services and bid to provide them... Community organisers – and others – will be expected to support them to do so. The policy context requires intermediaries... to refocus their attention on developing new community groups that are willing and able to develop and deliver public services…’

She goes on to note that:

‘none of the policy material to emerge thus far addresses the extent to which community organiser support should focus on bringing people from different backgrounds together or on supporting vulnerable citizens and groups to get involved.’

Discussing opportunities for CD, the paper concludes that social action in the context of Small State looks likely to involve 'hybrids of community groups, social entrepreneurs, public services and private contractors overseen by citizens, as well as local governments’.

And among the challenges, the big one:

‘ensuring active citizens are not solely providing services, but are also able to make demands upon authority and power.’

Which reminds me, back in April before the election, I wrote:

'start from the recognition that community action is fundamentally, insecapably political, and get used to it. Attempts to depoliticise it will be self-defeating and may lead to a revival of confrontational radicalism';

and Julian Dobson wrote:

'If we want community activity that won't frighten the horses and will leave most of society pretty much as it is, and will give you social action without having to worry about social justice, this kind of set-up may be a good bet. Those who want more substantial change may well find themselves suffocated in such a network.'

Which in turn invites the familiar point that much of the debate about Small State has taken place in the blogosphere, none of it included in Mel's cited sources. We continue to see two literatures on public policy, the traditional one ignoring the upstart.

 

 

Comments

[Nancy Thompson]

The idea of community organizers who don't consider fighting for social justice an integral part of their role is frightening. Empowering people who are not contributing fully to society either because of someone else's prejudice or because they have been somehow left behind should be fundamental to what a community organizer does.

If the society is not becoming more just and more inclusive, isn't that a neighborhood or a community or a society in decline?

[Kevin Harris]

Neatly put Nancy. We might also say, a state that successfully assimilates those who fight for social justice represents a society in decline.

And a community development profession that readily accedes to this is obviously a profession in decline.