The Big Society Approach and the Third Way Social Policies

Social policy can be said to be a politically contested and highly relevant subject, which enables people to understand the provision of social welfare and the competing visions about how to achieve a good society (Giddens, 2013: 49). The subject gives one an opportunity to analyze and engage in the contemporary social elements like health, housing and unemployment, immigration including others. These issues have a very high profile as far as public and political agendas are concerned. The paper serves as an opportunity to investigate the social value origins and their development with time including their impact and delivery in the contemporary society. It compares and contrasts the key competing perspectives and examines the key contemporary issues among policymakers, stakeholders, providers and welfare recipients.     

The big society approach was an ideology that was political. This approach was developed during the early 21st century (Carroll, and Buchholtz, 2014: 399). This idea made a proposal of integration of the free market together with the social solidarity theory that is based on voluntarism and hierarchy. Conceptually, it is involved in a mix dealing with libertarian paternalism as well as communitarianism. The roots of this approach may be traced back in the 1990s and in today’s attempts of developing non-thatcherite or post-thatcherite which is a brand of the UK conservation (Catney et al. 2014: 728). Some of the commentators have the view that the approach of the big society is invoking the civil society idea and at the same time leaning on the idea of one-nation conservation. There are various priorities of conserving a liberal democrat government coalition. These include giving more powers to communities including devolution and localism, encouraging volunteerism in taking active roles in their own communities, transferring of power from the central government to the local government; supporting mutual co-operation, social enterprises and charities, as well as publishing government data from an a transparent and an open government (Porter, and Kramer, 2011: 191). 

David Cameron outlined a new government role. This role of government aimed at helping actively in the creation of a big society, agitating directly for galvanizing as well as catalyzing social renewal. The idea of a big society was launched in 2010 by the Prime Minister (Wiarda, 2016: 499). He explained that the big society can be referred to as freedom, liberalism, empowerment or even responsibility. The ideas of empowering the local community are outlined; four big society communities are identified, as well as launching the big society bank that helps in financing social enterprises, voluntary groups, charities by the use of money from accounts that are dormant. The big society philosophical thinking lies on progressive conservatism which means achievement of progressive goals, for example; fighting of poverty by the use of means that are conservative especially the decentralization of power. It is very evident in all policy areas as well as in health policy (Sevenhuijsen, 2009: 21). It can be shown through white paper liberating in NHS and the consultation documents that are associated with it. There are recent opinion surveys of the public that show that although the big society has very high awareness as well as supporting individual policies, very little understanding and knowledge of the meaning if big society is seen. Nevertheless, there are some commentators who don’t lean on conservative philosophy and are fully embracing the big society idea (Porter, and Kramer, 2016: 87).

Social Policy as a Politically Contested and Highly Relevant Subject

In the analysis of Cameron, there has been an expansion of the state from the late 19th century so as to help in achieving a society that is fairer although this has not been achieved. The scope, size, as well as the government roles, has come to a point of inhibiting whereby there is no advancement in progressive goals of poverty reduction, fighting inequality as well as increasing the general wellbeing (Sage, 2012: 371). Due to the effect of social and personal responsibility in this approach, there is the promotion individualism as well as selfishness. David Cameron explained new skills which civil servants would use that would help in agitating as well as encouraging social action. The approach of the big society is linked to the roles of the state changes rather than in retrenchment. It involves the government doing the creation of opportunities for the people as well as communities to get powers and responsibilities from the state. So as to make this happen, there are several reforms that are interlinked. These include the following;

Decentralization takes organizations from a central control point to a control done by individuals or even local communities. This is a feature that defines a big society. It may include such things like the encouragement of a parent to take over a school, stimulating the participation of employees as well as social enterprise. In services of the public, it requires activists from the community who are supported by the state and may be encouraged to be involved, for instance, establishing a new school (Defourny, , Borzaga, and Defourny, 2011: 9). Furthermore, it needs citizens that are engaged with the role of the state which is encouraging a culture of mutualism, responsibility as well as an obligation. Studies have shown that users come to be the best in drivers towards innovation as compared to big companies. This also has a link to with effects of monopolies in creativity and innovation.

Accountability provides a design of institution for the public engagement. Decentralization is seen to be inadequate when it works alone. There is an argument that decentralization towards local control can fail. This has led to group thinking, inequality as well as parochialism. It is also argued that decentralization must go a mile away by empowering the local people (Lowndes, and Pratchett, 2012: 29). However, it should be done in the context of transparent accountability sideways as well as upwards. The role of the government is supporting local organizations by the means of benchmarking, guiding as well as sharing innovations. It is also important to implement the right types of participative approach in a task that is particular. The three dimensions of accountability and participation are considered here.

Roots and Priorities of the Big Society Approach

Transparency is very central to the thinking of big society. For instance, the coalition government of a country is usually committed to the publishing of details of the spending of all the central government. This approach also has other examples which include the Missouri Accountability Portal (Giddens, 2011: 49). This makes room for taxpayers to see how the money is being spent. The conservation party was aimed at unleashing information revolution in NHS through making data that is detailed about the performance of trusts, GPS, hospitals, doctors as well as other staff that are available to the public in online ways. This enables every person to be aware of those who are giving good services as well as those who are giving poor services. Technology is a tool that is critical and is useful in improving accountability as well as stimulating social action. The principle of post-bureaucratic state explains that policies should have a design that goes with human nature grain. It makes use the works of social psychologists and behavioral economists so as to encourage the people to make good choices.

Often, people end up in making decisions that are poor for many reasons rather than leaving people in their own devices or even giving them dos and don’ts. People should be guided to follow options that are the best but at the same time leaving all options that are bad open. The nudge technique is commonly used by many researchers (Alcock, 2010: 383). For example, the government of Minnesota failed to encourage people to do fill their tax returns in time by using fines, guidance and other good approaches. Instead of doing this, that made it public the fact that almost all the people in Minnesota had filled their tax returns already and after making a social norm apparent, there was a dramatic increase in the number of people who were submitting their forms. Advertisements were put up in Montana which stated that 80 per cent of students in colleges were drinking less than 4 beers every week (Giddens, 2013: 249).  These cuts in binge drinking led caused a fall in binge drinking because the students feared being seen abnormal. The challenge in these techniques is finding ways of encouraging people in acting on their own as well as in the long-term interests of the society and at the same time having respect for the freedom of individuals. The establishment of the new behavioral economics team has the role of finding ways in which better and easier choices can be made. This team is aimed at looking at the ways of using behavioral economics as well as market signals in persuading citizens to have a behavior that is integrated in a more social way.

Expansion of the State and Personal Responsibility in the Big Society Approach

The big social network was established in the year 2010. It was aimed at generating, developing as well as showcasing new ideas which would help people come together around the neighborhoods so as to perform good work. Its owner was a charity referred to as the social network foundation. Its first 4 years of existence, the big social network was funded by national lottery as well as grants from the public sector. The funding was 2 million dollars (Kisby, 2010 487). The allocation of this money and the way it was used by this network was criticized by a national audit office. There were allegations that the money was misused by this network and an investigation was done.

The launching of the big society capital as well as the big society bank was done in the year 2011. The organization received funding from major banks of the United Kingdom who provided 200 million dollars (Lingard, and Sellar, 2012: 57). The organization also got money from bank accounts that were dormant. The main intention of the UK government was unlocking 78 billion dollars in assets that were charitable for big societies. So as to make a demand for these funds, an announcement was made that 25 per cent of contracts of public service were supposed to get transferred to the private as well as to the voluntary sector.

The big society awards got established in the year 2010. This was aiming at recognizing the community and the work done in the United Kingdom which was demonstrating the big society. More than 50 awards were presented in early 2015 (Utting, 2015: 379). The national citizen service refers to voluntary personal as well as a social development program for those between sixteen and seventeen years old. Piloting of this program was done in 2011. By the year 2013, 30,000 people were already taking part.

The localism act of 2011 has a section that deals with empowering the community (Turner, 2011: 198). There was a creation of new rights for voluntary bodies, charitable trusts and many others to make applications to councils so as to do the services that are provided by the council. Furthermore, there are compiled lists containing assets of community value. These assets included shops, playing fields and pubs and were owned privately. However, they had a great value to the community. If this asset was sold later, it was easier for this community to place a bid for as well as taking over the asset.

Reforms for Empowering Communities

Free schools which are also referred to as character schools gave room for parents, charities, teachers as well as businesses to install and run schools belonging to them. These schools were established by the academic act of 2010. Above 400 character schools got approval for their opening in England in the years 2010 to 2015 (Carroll, 2009: 279). This represented above 230,000 vacancies in schools in the country.

Another way is making a reconciliation of left wing as well as right-wing politics. This is done through advocating synthesis that varies in some center-left as well as center-right policies. This is known as the third way (Jordan, 2012: 637). It was established to re-evaluate political policies that are found in many progressive movements that are center-left in responding to the doubt that regards viability of the economy in the state as well as overusing policies of economic intervention that were made popular in the early days. During this period of popularity, there was a contradiction in the new right and economic liberalism. The third-way gains promotion from the social liberal movement.

Tony Blair had claimed that the advocating of socialism is very different from the traditional concepts of socialism. He explains that his own socialism kind is basically a set of values that are based on social justice notions (Corbett, and Walker, 2013: 469). Socialism is a form of economic determinism that is very rigid. It usually involves political affairs that make recognition of individuals as being interdependent in a social way as well as advocating for social cohesion, social justice, equal opportunities as well as equal value for each and every citizen. There are theorists who have come out to explain that the third way has a rejection of the traditional concept of socialism. Instead, it accepts a concept of socialism as viewing the social democratic government to have the achievement of an ethical socialism that is viable through removing and adjusting capitalism elements. This is done through the provision of social welfare together with other policies. Contemporary socialism is bigger and has grown to outdo the Marxist claims of need for abolishing capitalism. The new capitalism was declared clearly to be supported in the year 2009 (Pierson, and Smith, 2011: 9).

The third way usually backs up pursuing greater egalitarianism within the society by action. This is done so as to help increase skills distribution, capacities as well as productive endowments and at the same time rejecting the redistribution of income as a method of achieving this. It puts more emphasis on commitments to budgets that are balanced, provision of equal opportunities that combines with a lot of emphasis on individual responsibility, decentralizing government powers to the level that is lowest, encouraging and promoting private-public partnerships, improvement of supply of labor, investing in human developments, preservation of social capitals, as well as protecting the environment (Evers, 2015: 163). There are many critiques of the third way. It has received many critiques from classical liberals, conservatives, as well as libertarians. It has also received heavy criticisms from democratic socialists, social democrats, anarchists as well as communists. They have betrayed the values of the left wing. Very specific definitions regarding third-way policies can differ between the United States of America and Europe.

Decentralization, Accountability, and Transparency in the Big Society Approach

In the year 1979, labor party made an adherence towards social democratic ideals and also rejected that choice between “efficient Britain and prosperous Britain” and “compassionate and caring Britain” (Amin, and Thrift, 2015: 47). Coherent with this post, the major commitments of this party was reducing economic inequality by introducing a wealth tax. There was a drastic change of the agenda with progressive dismissal in the ideology of traditional social democracy. To be in particular, the new labor de-emphasizes tackling of economic inequality but instead made a focus on political strategies on expanding opportunities for everyone, the keeping interventions of the public in the market to the minimum. This aimed at fostering the creation of social capital through holding together modernizing the state as well as creating social ties that are stronger.

Changing of the political orientation basically was based on profound revising of the principles of social democracy.  The principles formed the ground of consideration and were viewed as obstacles that hindered activation of making policies that were based on evidence. Preventing market failures was basically targeting educational disadvantages as well as child poverty. This new vision meant fully accepting market principles and pushing values of traditional social democracy fur away. This shift of ideology happened despite the sharp increase of economic inequality that was experienced the year 1979 and the year 1995 (Jordan, 2010: 498).

The importance attached to creating social capital is a sign of interests of new labor in the civil society. The interest is best explained through the impact of individual freedom that is growing (Bonoli, 2015: 445). This is fostering economic as well as modernization in technology, where traditional solidarity forms, as well as interdependence, are in need to help in preventing social disintegration. This is a social paradox that has already been identified by sociology founding fathers. Due to this, new labor had a consideration of creating social capital to act as the best antidote in the tension that was experienced between modern and traditional values.

Tony Blair made a proposal of managing social change through the unification of moral values. This was useful in getting community evidence as well as scientific evidence. This was used in informing policymaking that was based on evidence. According to him, fusing the two elements was the best remedy in the social paradox. During the transformation and modernization age, values that are cultivated at secondary groups usually require universal acceptance since they correspond to the face of human beings in a society that is dominated by the pursuit of efficient as well as competition (Wilthagen, and Tros, 2014: 174). Creating social capital usually balances the growing of individualism which requires interdependence and serving towards prevention of modernization from going towards the disintegration of the society. After the coming together of the argument of social capital and discourse of the third way, the new labor made a bridge of practice and theory by making policies in various levels. These levels included health, education as well as the neighborhoods. It attempted to measure the direct effect of the reforms that were made on social capital. The goals and objectives in the creation of social capital by empowering families as well as communities and decentralizing social services were the main force in the political actions of the new labor.

The Importance of Technology in Improving Accountability and Stimulating Social Action

From the analysis it is clear that the big society policy involves giving more powers to communities including devolution and localism, encouraging volunteerism in taking active roles in their own communities, transferring of power from the central government to the local government, supporting mutual, co-operation, social enterprises and charities, as well as publishing government data from an a transparent and an open government. The approach of the big society is linked to the roles of the state changes rather than in retrenchment. It involves the government doing the creation of opportunities for the people as well as communities to get powers and responsibilities from the state. The various elements of big society approach include; decentralization takes organizations from a central control point to a control done by individuals or even local communities. Accountability provides a design of institution for the public engagement. Decentralization is seen to be inadequate when it works alone.

Technology is a tool that is critical and is useful in improving accountability as well as stimulating social action. The principle of post-bureaucratic state explains that policies should have a design that goes with human nature grain. Transparency is very central to the thinking of big society. For instance, the coalition government of a country is usually committed to the publishing of details of the spending of all the central government. Another way is making a reconciliation of left wing as well as right-wing politics. This is done through advocating synthesis that varies in some center-left as well as center-right policies. This is known as the third way. It was established to re-evaluate political policies that are found in many progressive movements that are center-left in responding to the doubt that regards viability of the economy in the state as well as overusing policies of economic intervention that were made popular in the early days.

References

Alcock, P., 2010. Building the Big Society: a new policy environment for the third sector in England. Voluntary sector review, 1(3), pp.379-389.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N., 2015. Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association. Economy and society, 24(1), pp.41-66.

Bonoli, G., 2015. The politics of the new social policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states. Policy & politics, 33(3), pp.431-449.

Carroll, A. and Buchholtz, A., 2014. Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 4(2), pp.385-408.

Carroll, A.B., 2009. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society, 38(3), pp.268-295.

Catney, P., MacGregor, S., Dobson, A., Hall, S.M., Royston, S., Robinson, Z., Ormerod, M. and Ross, S., 2014. Big society, little justice? Community renewable energy and the politics of localism. Local Environment, 19(7), pp.715-730.

Corbett, S. and Walker, A., 2013. The big society: Rediscovery of ‘the social’or rhetorical fig-leaf for neo-liberalism?. Critical Social Policy, 33(3), pp.451-472.

Defourny, J., Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J., 2011. From third sector to social enterprise V.4 (pp. 1-28). London: Routledge.

Evers, A., 2015. Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6(2), pp.159-182.

Giddens, A., 2011. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons. Journal of educational administration and history, 44(1), pp.43-63.

Giddens, A., 2013. The third way and its critics. John Wiley & Sons. Leisure studies, 24(3), pp.239-258.

Jordan, B., 2010. Why the Third Way Failed: Economics, Morality and the Origins of the” Big Society”. Policy Press. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), pp.485-508.

Jordan, B., 2012. Making sense of the ‘Big Society’: Social work and the moral order. Journal of Social Work, 12(6), pp.630-646.

Kisby, B., 2010. The Big Society: power to the people?. The political quarterly, 81(4), pp.484-491.

Lingard, B. and Sellar, S., 2012. A policy sociology reflection on school reform in England: from the ‘Third Way’to the ‘Big Society’. Journal of educational administration and history, 44(1), pp.43-63.

Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L., 2012. Local governance under the coalition government: Austerity, localism and the ‘Big Society’. Local government studies, 38(1), pp.21-40.

Pierson, J. and Smith, J., 2011. Introduction. In Rebuilding Community V.3 (pp. 1-12). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., 2011. The big idea: Creating shared value. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2(1), pp.185-208.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., 2016. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), pp.78-92.

Sage, D., 2012. A challenge to liberalism? The communitarianism of the Big Society and Blue Labour. Critical social policy, 32(3), pp.365-382.

Sevenhuijsen, S., 2009. Caring in the third way: the relation between obligation, responsibility and care in Third Way discourse. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), pp.5-37.

Turner, B.S., 2011. The erosion of citizenship. The British journal of sociology, 52(2), pp.189-209.

Utting, P., 2015. Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in practice, 15(3-4), pp.375-388.

Wiarda, H.J., 2016. Corporatism and comparative politics: the other great” ism”. Routledge. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), pp.445-528.

Wilthagen, T. and Tros, F., 2014. The concept of ‘flexicurity’: a new approach to regulating employment and labour markets. Transfer: European Review of labour and research, 10(2), pp.166-186.