Successive governments have known that most inner and outer ring urban areas have struggled for many decades and are in need of civil renewal.  For 50 years, renewal initiative after initiative has been launched – Urban Aid, ICP, SRB, NDC, NRF, WNF. They have cost billions of pounds. But, there are as many excluded neighbourhoods as there were before all these costly remedial initiatives started.  How can this be?

pic: Balsall Heath Forum

The cause is not a lack of money, not material deprivation, as some suppose. The solution is not more public spending; higher taxes, as some imagine.  Throwing money at neighbourhoods does not touch the real issues.  Our lives are more disjointed; we know fewer neighbours; we are less likely to feel we are in control of the decisions which affect us.  In other words, we are socially poorer; culturally poorer – even though we might be materially better off.

What are the causes of this ‘civil decay’?  You have to go back to ‘the Enlightenment’: the age of reason and rationality which emerged in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.  Enlightment thinking gave rise to all the benefits which science has bought in its wake – medicine, transportation and communications: the modern age.  All that is good.  But, at the same time, the scientific, rational, mode of thought has not just helped us to conquer and explain the material world. It has also intruded into the way we see the subjective world of culture. It has questioned not just physical laws, but also the codes which govern the way we live with each other and, in so doing, has eroded many of the traditional bonds which once tied us together in common cause and gave us a moral compass.

In step with scientific advance came many technological inventions. They have quickened the pace of life. We live longer, but we also live faster lives in which there is less time to linger with friends, relatives and neighbours. We have ‘gone global’ and, in so doing, we have eroded much of the local and familiar. Our sense of collective identity and our moral compass has weakened just as the speed of our individual movement and our geographical compass has opened us to vast horizons.

Just as the Enlightenment and Technology brought many benefits, so too has the Welfare State. The Friendly and Mutual Societies which pre-dated it could not reach everyone in need of help. The State set out to do so and open health, schooling, safety and housing to all who might benefit from them.  But, in recent decades, just as the benefits of the Enlightenment and Technology reached too far into the subjective world of human relations and the values which shaped them, so too has the State.

Thus, in very many inner and outer ring areas, most houses, alleyways, corner patches of land, car parks and parks are publically owned. But, they are dirty, litter strewn, poorly maintained, unsafe and unfriendly. Why?  There are two reasons:

• One, because even the best top-down collective bureaucracy can’t do everything, can’t provide the personal touch, the sense of care which comes from local ownership.
• Two, because in trying to do everything for everyone, the message to ordinary people has become: “Don’t bother, we’ll do it for you”.

As a result, people have come to depend on that remote bureaucracy to provide them with services and a quality of life which they once provided for themselves.

The Third Sector

Amitai Etzioni reminds us society is like a 3 legged stool. If one leg became longer and stronger than the others, or if one shrinks, then the whole stool becomes unbalanced and falls over. In modern times the leg of the State has grown so that society has become unbalanced.  We had to realign our society in the 1980s to allow the private sector to grow stronger. Now it is time to rebalance the relationship between the Third Sector and the State. 

We should not blame the Public Sector for the ills and weaknesses of the Third Sector any more than we ‘blame’ science and technology for wider civil decay. If blame is to be apportioned, let’s look inside the Third Sector itself and ask why it allowed itself to be divided and ruled.   Under different circumstances and with bolder, more visionary, leaders it could have negotiated a better way through the promises of the Welfare State.  But, instead, the quality of life in our urban areas has become too weak, atomised and uncertain to sustain a good quality of life. The proverbial communal village which is needed to educate every child and keep them on a steady course to adult maturity has shrunk to the size of the 2 and, often, single parent family who, alone, is unequal to the task of raising the next generation.

If we are to rebalance the Third and the Public Sector – and re-moralise the Third Sector, we need to question what it is the State exists to do; ask these questions:

1. Which of the functions of the Public Sector can and should be devolved to local level and which ones can’t?
2. Which of the functions which can be devolved need to be delivered by the Third Sector?

A considerable range of functions should be retained by the state or its regional representatives. These include:

• The General Hospital.
• The Chief Constable and region-wide squads.
• The fire-tender and those who drive it.
• The refuse wagon and those who drive it.

It is important to spell out the full list of such items, to remind ourselves about the economies of scale and to re-assert the major ‘doing’ role of the state.

At the same time, it is important to identify those activities which can be carried out locally. These include.

• All the schools in a Local Authority area used to be managed and funded by a Committee of 15 Councillors and a Local Education Authority bureaucracy. Today, each school is managed by its own governing body and handles 93% of its budget.
• Housing Action Trusts, such as Castle Vale in Birmingham manage all the public housing stock in their neighbourhood.
• Health and well-being centres cater for the primary health needs of people in a small area.
• Neighbourhood Policing now takes some police officers out into the community and expects them to be ‘tasked’ by residents to solve the crime and safety issues which they identify.
• Social Entrepreneurs and Active Citizens build social capital and run a host of small, close at home agencies – clubs for elders and the young – which make communal life valuable.

Neighbourhoods

Why the emphasis on devolution of services to local level?  Because people live in (urban) villages or neighbourhoods – settlements of up to about 15,000 people. These places have names, Toxteth, Royds, Castle Vale, Hackney and Balsall Heath. People identify with them and, when asked, say: ‘That’s where I live, that’s where my neighbours and friends are’. But, until the Social Exclusion Unit and its PAT 4 spelled it out, few of us had realised that most neighbourhoods had become consumed within the wider urban sprawl of authority, had no manager, no budget, no development plan which might focus top-down services and turn them into tailor-made, neighbourhoods specific, ones.

Anne Power (LSE) and I worked out that a neighbourhood of 14,000 people costs the taxpayer £100m per year. Of course, some of this is spent of the General Hospital, the Chief Constable and all those items which can’t be devolved and must be delivered centrally. But, as much as £50m per year could be devolved and spent either by the School Governor or the local neighbourhood police team or by the resident customer working in tandem with their local statutory partners.

The old saying that ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’ is relevant. For, it reduces the queue in the doctor’s surgery or Health Centre and, thus, its cheaper. But, it’s not a service. Its a way of healthy living.  A robust, cohesive, self-respecting, community also prevents crime, doesn’t put litter down, looks after the lost child, calls in on and goes shopping for the elderly resident who otherwise might be taken into expensive care.

If just 2% (£1m) of a neighbourhood’s devolvable budget of £50m was not spent on services but on enabling the community to live fuller lives which prevent expensive-to-solve problems from arising, then it would be a wise investment and save money.

 How much might be saved? Well, one murder costs £1m. A burglary costs £14k. One person taken into care costs £150k.  So, it is entirely possible to consider saving £10m or more both of the devolvable £50m and the non devolvable £50m which is spent in each neighbourhood – that ’s a large saving. But, its not made for the sake of making cuts. Its a useful consequence of people living richer lives which builds social capital. Its a better way of managing the way we care for each other. Its the welfare community, not just the Welfare State, its the legs of the social stool coming to be balanced and sturdy.

 Principles of Devolution

It is important to spell out in detail the values which underpin and give real meaning to devolution. Here, in brief summary form, they include:

Subsidiarity. The long established principle of subsidiarity tells us all that it is a crime for a larger higher authority to retain a function which, in fact, can be undertaken by a lower and smaller one. For, it both robs the smaller authority of its life blood and bloats the importance of the larger one and, worse, diverts its eyes from its essential functions.

The long established question ‘how do you feed a hungry person?’ and the answer to it are relevant. If you give them a fish to day, you feed them and their family. But, you also make them dependent on you to give them another fish tomorrow. Yet, teach them how to fish and they feed themselves and become independent and proud – and as described above, its cheaper.

Self-help and responsibility. This principle is, in part contained within subsidiarity. But, we all gain pride, self-esteem and motivation if we are given and can shoulder the sense of responsibility. It is relatively easy to receive. But, it is more difficult and rewarding to give.

Small is beautiful. Erich Schumaker reminded us all that most human beings respond far better and are energised by the small scale then by the large one. That is, the small scale taps human resources which otherwise remain hidden and underutilised.

Giving. All the sacred texts tell us that it is better to give them just to receive.

Cost effectiveness. It is simply silly and wrong to spend more taxpayer’s money then is necessary on managing and renewing neighbourhoods. Thus, if building up neighbourhoods, mending the hole in the social ozone layer and devolution creates both a better quality of life and, as a matter of fact, also saves money and uses it more effectively – that has to be a virtue. Not so much cuts as wise investment to save money.

We need as many examples of good practice as we can get – both to demonstrate to doubters that devolution really does work and to use as a teaching/mentoring devise for those who are just setting out on the journey.   The Guide Neighbourhoods (Balsall Heath, Castle Vale, Royds, etc) which the Home Office and CLG recognised have each had dozens of eager visitors who leave inspired to realise their own aspiration. No suited consultant can echo with the words of wisdom from a resident who has ‘been there, done that and got the T shirt’.

However, just as we need a treasure trail of best practice of recovering neighbourhoods and neighbourhood management, we also need one of best police, health, local authority and even government practice.

Barriers to Progress

You might suppose that successful devolution will proceed automatically at an enthusiastic pace. But, it won’t. Consider these facts:

The British Empire found it very difficult to let go to the Colonies and evolve into a Commonwealth. Indeed, the Colonies had to fight wars of independence to achieve their version of devolution.

The first Labour Government in 1997 set up the Social Exclusion Unit and made many of the above points, particularly, those about managing neighbourhoods better. But, little progress has been made.

 Those few neighbourhoods which have been successfully transformed and which form a treasure trail of beset practice, have done so against the odds and much resistance. And, even fewer of them have achieved the devolution of budgets.

So, we must first ask ‘what are the forces which work to preserve the status quo?’ Then, we must ask: ‘How can they be overcome?’

First, Central Government – the great Departments of State were created to build houses, create a Universal Heath System, ensure that every child had a school to go to and so on. But, none were created to address ‘the hole in the social ozone layer;  to tend Civil Renewal; to grow Social Capital and devolve powers from other existing departments right down to neighbourhood level. We need to create a State enabler, a devolver, an empowerer of people. We need to staff it with Ministers who will stay at the helm of it for more than a year or two and who have the will and determination to ensure that their civil servants don’t behave like ‘yes, minister’, but are equally dedicated to delivering success.

Next, Local Government and its agencies… Had Local Management of Schools (LMS) been voluntary, we would still have been waiting for it. The then local education authorities would have resisted. So, if we are to achieve LMN, the local management of neighbourhoods, it must be made into a requirement and not an option.  As with Whitehall, the departments of the Town Hall were not created to tend Civil Renewal or ensure that devolution takes place. So, each Town Hall must be challenged to create one and staff it with Councillors and Officers who are not risk averse, are dedicated to  breaking down the status quo and handing power to the people.

What of councillors?  Once elected, most are used to treading the corridors of power and only being seen in their Ward for individual surgeries or at the time of the next election. They resent and resist more and more residents acting like mini-councillors themselves.

We need to invent a new role for the Councillor as the Community Champion and to see that they spend as much time in their ward helping the neighbourhood partnership to develop as in the Town Hall.  Perhaps, we need to recruit Councillors from the ranks of Active Citizens and to induct them into the arts and skills of being a Community Champion rather than a Political Representative.

Finally, the Third Sector… It would be far too simplistic to see Whitehall and the Town Hall as being the only obstacles to be changed and overcome. The disintegrated, disorganised, state of the Third Sector is also a source of concern. Most neighbourhoods are not yet ready for devolution; they would make a hash of it if given it too soon and would provide all those who defend the status quo with this convincing cry: ‘See, they can’t handle it. Told you so. Let’s go back to where we were’.

Before power and budgets are passed to any neighbourhood, a significant period of Capacity Building is essential which is designed to help the neighbourhood get its act together. Thus, devolution should proceed in stages: first to the few neighbourhoods which are ready, then to the next set, then the next. As with Councillors, training and induction is essential for:

Social Entrepreneurs

Capacity Builders

Active Citizens and Good Neighbours, some call them street stewards.

The wider community within the neighbourhood.

Each authority area needs its own School for Social Entrepreneurs and a Residents’ University which is staffed by those who have already ‘graduated’ in the school of ‘hard knocks and experience’.

An Interim Conclusion?

Reversing social and cultural poverty will take time: attitudes have become ingrained; unhelpful cultures within public agencies and large ‘Third Sector’ bodes have flourished.  But perhaps we can at least see a way through now.   For decades rival politicians and political parties have been stuck in a futile locking of horns between Collectivism and a big State on one side and Individualism and a small State on the other. They have not supposed that it was possible or desirable to have both.

But, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Those neighbourhoods which have successfully reinvigorated their civil life and improved the circumstances in which their residents live show that:

We need a strong State which both (1) retains and refines a major ‘doing’ function and delivers services and (2) enables and empowers residents in neighbourhoods to do things for themselves, and builds social capital.

This then enables residents to form a meaningful and productive relationship with the state (their statutory partners) and appreciate its virtues. As a result, distrusted and jaded representative democracy gains a new lease of life – and the previously dwindling vote goes up! Now that really is an indicator of success!

There is an intriguing consequence of an enabling State which gives power to the people and enables them to build Social Capital and strengthen the Third Sector. For, a strong neighbourhood prevents many expensive-to-solve problems from arising. Simply by living socially richer lives, crime is prevented, public spaces and and places are looked after, people are healthier. So, the State – the statutory provider -  saves money.

Some of this money really can just be saved. But, crucially, some can be invested in the capacity building of residents and the creation of social capital. That is, the alternative to both Collectivism and Individualism, combines them and gives real power to the people is a very cost-effective, business-like, alternative.  This is an important discovery at the best of times. In a recession when some are tempted to simply cut the costs of the State rather than to reinvent it, surely it is not just important but irresistible? 

For 50 years successive Governments have sought to increase taxes to give costly renewal initiative after initiative to a limited number of neighbourhoods for a time-limited period of time. Yet, only those neighbourhoods which ‘did it their way’ succeeded. Most failed and very large sums of extra money were wasted and the state remained unreformed and increasingly disrespected.  At last, we have an alternative which works. It does not rely on extra money except perhaps, for a limited pump-priming time. It is driven by using existing money differently and by changing the way we care for each other.

The contending cultures of collectivism and individualism have been an obstacle preventing success. Now is the time to overcome that obstacle and achieve the elusive Holy Grail of renewal.   Devolution offers to re-energise the State and give real power to the people.