Who Cares?

Whatever untold strife there is in Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq, the undeniable and continuing news story at home is our national health service – the NHS itself and (in the wider community) social care services – especially care homes exacerbated by the government’s desire to cut costs and benefits as a result of government debts from the bank-induced recession.

In recent years, the intolerable conditions under which elderly and mentally challenged residents of social care homes were treated became clear. Attacks by staff on residents have been detailed and prison sentences resulted.

Then, in the last 12 months, publicity has focused on NHS hospitals – amongst them Mid-Staffs, Trafford and now University College in Wales. Poor standards appear to have led to deaths and misery and then a debate about how nurses, for example, spend too much time training and not enough caring, while week-ends are suddenly revealed to be understaffed and A&E (Accident and Emergency) services are under enormous strain.

So, Who Cares?

This is not just a sad reflection on critical institutions but appears to reflect very badly on ourselves as caring human beings and on whatever society we have created. Our demands are for low government spending and for maximum services as long as someone else pays. What has happened that makes us so uncaring? While this may not be on a scale like what has happened in recent years in Bosnia or Somalia or now in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, our insensitivities to other people have reached a sorry state – the governing State and its inability to provide the answer and the civil state that appears to be no better.

Quality of life has been subsumed in the message of “quantity of life” for so long – the pursuit of wealth as recorded in terms of money and goods – that we are failing to reconcile ourselves with the softer issues of existence. The pursuit of economic benefits has seems to have clouded out all else as we pursue ever higher GDP.

We blame government for this – but, government represent us, civil society, citizens and we get what, I guess, we deserve. David Cameron and his happiness index is a measure of the difficulties we are in – where we have to measure things before we do anything.

Measurement is a quantitative outcome of real activities. Hospital failures are deemed to be the outcome of rigid focus on targets and it is clear that we have, as a society, been totally brainwashed by the success of business and used its targeting approach to success in all other areas.

So, we set up targets for hospitals without understanding the qualitative targets that need to be set. This is the same as the setting up of government departments to quantify the value of natural capital (Natural Capital Committee at DEFRA) as that, seemingly, is the only way to guard against the complete destruction of our ecology. As a minor example, the only delight that most have in watching Antiques Roadshow is the valuation for each item – the genuine beauty of the item is sidelined as we wait for the valuer to tell us how much an item is “worth”.

We seem completely uncaring as human beings – sacrificed on the altar of quantity and unable any more to see the real quality of life.

Where is the Care?

Yet, not all NHS hospitals are death traps and by no means all medical professionals are uncaring – most aren’t. Indeed, it is likely to be a small minority that exhibits such immoralities. However, we have a developed a structure built on sand where managerialism and devotion to numbers and targets exist throughout and our obsession with quantity overrules quality.

This is why MRSA took such hold in British hospitals for so many years – because other obsessions took firmer hold.

So, where is the care? Will it come from the new agenda that is being pushed  – the wellbeing agenda? Will the Health and Wellbeing Boards (around 150 have been set-up throughout England) result in an infection of caring and quality? Will top-down direction result in a change in culture that is professed throughout.  Will the CQC be suddenly changed into a care organization? Will expert inspections be the savior? Or will the whole be an edifice, behind which politicians hide proclaiming that they did their job and it was the professionals that failed – or are we simply kidding ourselves that top-down, outside inspection and control can fix the problem.

The Caring Sectors? Chaos in Conformity.

The NHS and Care homes suffer from a culture problem and a procedures-driven mentality that eschews common feelings. NHS facilities are procedures-focused to the extent that it is amazing that breathing can be undertaken without supervision. Everything is policy-controlled and process. It is no wonder that care is forgotten. All who have it are in danger of losing it once they enter the profession – those that retain their care mentality are fighters and have to be for their morality to survive.

I have seen the evidence of this, not in a hospital but in the charity sector. – the so-called Third Sector. Charities are centres of care where the whole focus is on the cause. This key focus is driven by founders with vision and caring and with funders who buy into that care and cause agenda.

Sometimes, well-meaning Trustees bring in NHS or NHS-related people to run a charity – thinking that one non-profit is much like another. So wrong!

What often happens is that the charity is swarmed over by policies and procedures and directives and by new people brought in from outside (often the NHS) who “get” the new mantra. Soon, the charity is losing its way and its cause is forgotten in the chaos of conformity that ensues.

I believe that the charity sector (really the second sector in the caring sector as it was the precursor to government involvement) is where real compassion and caring still resides. Like a treasure-box of solace for humanity, the charity sector is built on causes and full of people that care – quality of caring and not quantities of statistics.

I have myself spent many years in the business sector, where care for customers is paramount but so is the quantifiable bottom line. Customer care leads to better profits and well-run companies know that their profits will be hit hard if customers suffer. However, care for customers means doing business well – good design, well priced goods and services, good after-sales, better call centres, smiles and the like. The aim is to make profits – one bottom line – but thorugh a complex array of inputs, outputs and outcomes.

In the charity sector, there are two bottom lines and two customers. The main one is the cause – the caring for the beneficiaries of the charity. The second is the funder – the provider of the funds for the cause and a way to break-even and grow the charity to satisfy the needs of the beneficiaries.

This balancing of the two bottom lines is crucial to the success of any charity and the care side is just as important as the funding. It comes first but is dependent on the other. Two sides of the bargain.

I continue to be overwhelmed by the people that work in and volunteer for and fund charities. From the largest like Macmillan Cancer Care and Cancer Research and WWF to the smaller ones like Willow (where I am CEO) to campaigning charities to health charities, the vast majority are focused, and relentlessly determined to make their charity successful. To do that, they have to positively impact their cause.

This is a learning tool for the national health sector (both public sector and private sector) in the UK. The challenge of wellbeing is to harness real caring into the morass of policies and procedures that entangle the NHS and the profit-motive that engulfs the care homes. Amongst the top-down rules and strategies that the Health and Wellbeing Boards adopt should be the adoption of the basic tenets of the charity sector.

The Third Sector Infiltration

What does this mean? Well, first, ensure that there are charity people on the Health and Wellbeing Boards. This means real, caring people that understand the challenges of the two bottom lines and have shown some success. Such people run and work in hospices across the country as well as service-type charities like MacMillan and many others.

Second, adopt the two bottom lines. Understand that the cause is as crucial as the finances. Just because in the public sector there is only one funder does not mean that that monopoly funder should run the organization. Being “funder led” is a sign of disaster in the charity sector. It should also be in the public sector. Sure, we want effective use of taxation in every public sector area but the balance should be in place and the only area where that balance is in place is in the charity sector.

Third, Government must take the role of the interested funder – not the shareholder. This is civil society money raised from taxation but to be used for a good cause. It is the wrong balance if the Treasury is the only arbiter. The Department of Health (and wellbeing?) is the funder and the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Groups) are the funders – can we trust them (the General Practitioners and members of other NHS organisations) to provide care objectives when they are the “commissioners” – the buyers? Who represents the citizens – civil society – the patients? Where are the patients represented anywhere? Who demands that care forms the agenda – the Health and Wellbeing Boards?

Yet, they are mainly formed of our representatives – local councilors and the like. Where is the care sector involved? The “caring professions” have, unfortunately, been tainted by the recent past – it is now a good time for the Third Sector to be properly represented in the world of care to a far higher extent than David Cameron’s vision of a caring Britain (his Big Society) where charities were lumbered with being low-cost alternatives to local authorities and hospitals. It is time for a reverse takeover – with caring in the lead.

The Reality of Governance

Attended the ACEVO Governance Commission Consultation Session 4

today (30 May). Good group of highly motivate people – mainly CEO’s. I provided the following paper at the end to the Commission – sums up my views on Charity Governance and the problem the current governance framework employs with a two-tier system trying to fit into a unitary legal framework. My response is to put CEO’s into Boards (as is the case with ACEVO).

The Reality of Governance

Grant Thornton in its Charity Governance Review 2013 – the Science of Good Governance – does not mention Chief Executives once.

They fall into the trap that governance “experts” so often do when writing about the charity / not for profit sector and the trap that the designers of governance law and rules have done since the beginning. The trap is that those entrusted with legal responsibility for such organisations can supposedly carry out their role as non-executives and any executives are deemed unnecessary to the process (or subordinated within the process as the “governed”) – indeed, in the legalistic set-up and the advice proffered to boards, chief executives are deemed risky on the board because of conflicts of interest – as the governed they hinder governance.

This separation of executive from non-executive is a divisive separation that inhibits good governance in the real world. The separation is really a throw-back to the 19th Century when wealthy philanthropists required administrators to disburse their funds. It has no place in the 21st Century except in very small charities (which are probably too small to have a CEO anyway). Elsewhere, having the Chief Executive on the Board should be seen as a natural requirement for reasons as follows:

1.     The Board cannot escape the charge of not being aware of issues as the Chief Executive will be part of the Board

2.     This is, in reality, the only way that Boards can be sufficiently aware of activities that impact governance

3.     The Board becomes “collegiate” with the development of real common cause

4.     The “upstairs / downstairs” mentality of the 19th Century is swapped for adult and more up-to-date dialogue

5.     Chief Executives will have to rise to the occasion so that they better understand the requirements and responsibilities of the Board rather than make proposals to the Board (as a servant of the Board) – even if, in reality, a CEO is probably in law as responsible as anyone for those decisions.

Unitary or two-tier boards?

There is also a continuous debate between the desirability of unitary and two-tier boards and it is believed that most charities (almost all) have decided on the second – whereas in most corporate Anglo-Saxon organisations (and public sector) the unitary board is by far the most common.

There are a few major errors within this view.

For there to be a two-tier board structure, there needs to be a legal distinction between the legal responsibilities of the two boards. In the UK, there is none so  that Charities that decide to form themselves of completely non-executives maintain a unitary structure but then devolve executive or operational decision-making to a team of executives – who are not enshrined in any legal context.

This team of executives (usually known as a Senior Management Team or SMT) has no specific legal framework outside of individual terms and conditions of employment. The SMT rarely has a framework of organization outside of an organization chart and has very few legally acknowledged responsibilities.

In the majority of charities, the most that exists is a tacit agreement between the Board (made up of non-executives) and the Chief Executive for the latter to carry out operational or “day to day” functions while the Board does governance.

This is not the two-tier legal structure known in German corporates, for example, which have defined legal status for both boards.

In the UK Charity set-up, only the main Board has legal status and is one reason why Grant Thornton do not mention the second “board” (as there isn’t one) or the Chief Executive at all!

The Responsibility Split

As a result of the ill-defined make-up of the Unitary Board in the UK Charity Sector, the split between the Board of non-executives and the management is also very ill-defined.

The Charity Commission spends much time on the responsibilities of the Board and states that there is an inherent problem in having Chief Executives on the Board of reasons of conflict of interest. However, the Charities commission does not state that Chief Executives should not be on the Board – which they can as long as Articles of Association allow this or Charities Commission approval is obtained.

Conflicts over, for example, salaries of the CEO can easily be handled by the CEO leaving the room (as it does in the Education Sector where Academy Chief Execs / Principals or School Heads – who are ex-officio on the Board – manage perfectly adequately).

However, the message is that Chief Executives are not normally on a Board. This message is just allowed to resonate around the sector – that there are so many conflicts between governance and operational management that it is better for the CEO to not be on the Board – the 19th Century mantra. This is not realistic. The conflict of interest issue is important – but, that is true for any member of the Board. Being non-executive does not mean that conflicts of interest don’t arise. Newly formed boards in the health sector are finding that there is a great deal of conflict where board members may have other interests in suppliers, for example.

The second reason for a completely non-executive board is unstated by the Charity Commission but often raised – the potential for undue influence by the Chief Executive if he / she is a Board member.

It is held that this one person would yield great(er) influence if he / she did not just attend Board meetings but also had a vote (one vote out of ten plus on the Board).

This is also unrealistic as a vote in itself is not the essence of the board membership. Chief Executives will not become more or less overbearing if hey have a vote – as is explained below. Governance remains the Board’s duty and legal responsibility – whether one vote is held by an executive manager or not.

The Tenuous Link

In the current split of responsibilities, the supposed two-tier Board structure (which is really only one plus an SMT) is completely reliant on the Chair of Trustees / Directors forming an excellent relationship with the Chief Executive (who heads up the SMT).

This requires the Chair to be up-to-speed on all things relevant to the legal requirements of the Board – an impossible task – in both directions.

This usually results in the Chair requiring the Chief Executive to provide a range of facilities to the Board – including induction, information provision and the like – so that the Board can attempt to be well enough educated to be able to carry out its responsibilities.

This is a tenuous link.

Worse, the Board has, in many organisations, retained so-called strategic responsibilities so that only operational requirements can be passed on to the SMT. This split of responsibilities is, again, a throw-back to the 19th Century where wealthy philanthropists entrusted administrators with passing out money on their wishes.

With far more charity complexity, the thought that non-executives actually “do strategy” is of great concern. 20th Century management thinking moved on from this separation in the 1930’s. It is well understood that strategy and operations are two sides of the same organizational coin and cannot be separated.

A recognized alternative may make sense as in the Carver model. “In the Carver Model, the board is responsible for ‘ends’, the difference the charity is seeking to make, for whom and at what cost. The CEO and the staff team are responsible for ‘means’, the actions which are taken to deliver the ‘ends’. John Carver talks about governance as ‘moral ownership’ one step down rather than one step up from management. He sees board leadership as meeting the wishes of the moral owners in compliance with laws and regulations. The role of the paid staff is to make the wishes of trustees’ happen.”

Carver does not recommend that CEO’s be on the Board but the concept that Carver proposes is so far away from current models – he views the CEO as completely central and Boards having the essence of the charity and governance and then asking the CEO to do everything else – that it is not consistent.

Current Boards are uncertain in their remit, usually go overboard in micromanagement and wanting to “do strategy”, often wanting to bypass the CEO in finding out information (i.e. do not put sufficient trust in the office of CEO).

This means that the viability of the Charity rests upon the tenuous link between Chair and CEO. The former, part of a non-executive Board; the latter (who does not in most cases report to the Chair) head of an SMT. The only legal link is in the CEO’s contract – a reporting line to the Board (who then often give this to the Chair).

This is a tenuous link and CEO’s often find this very difficult.

The Work Split between Board and Management

There is no constancy at all in any Board. Many see (as do NCVO) that the Board does strategy and the CEO and his / her team does “day to day”. This is out of date and harmful.

From a vision of the organization (usually the cause developed by the Founders and then provided as a legacy to the Board), a strategy has to be developed. This is clear. However, modern management thinking is uniform in its agreement that strategy and implementation need to be done by the senior management. This may require confirmation from the Board but then is the essence of good management and the ability of management to implement this strategy with the rest of the workforce. There is no sense in any advice from Charities Commission or elsewhere that this is understood.

Any charity where the Board does the strategy and the CEO picks it up and hopes to implement it is going against all best practice. The CEO is central to developing strategy – as is the SMT.

This is why, in reality, the SMT does the strategy based on the vision guided to them by the Board / Founders. SMT then has a job to sell this into the Board.

The main functions of the Board are not disrupted in this way. However, the link between Board and Management may be.

CEO on the Board

Those involved in governance thinking (Carver is a good example) believe that CEO’s should not be on the board for reasons of conflict of interest (or self-interest). In addition, they believe that there are better ways to make CEO’s feel good about themselves – i.e. the provision of sufficient prestige.

This misses out the very positive aspects of Board membership that the legalistic aspects of governance misrepresent but are fairly clear-cut in the real world.

What are these positive aspects?

1.     The Board is responsible legally and morally for the Charity. Yet, it is supposed to devolve almost every requirement of the organization to the management team – which is not even noted in law (i.e. it is a unitary Board when it thinks it is a two-tier system). In the absence of a proper framework, having the CEO on the Board provides an opportunity to ensure that the Management Team is at least unified in its legal responsibilities with the Board.

2.     Strategically, the Board is ill-equipped to understand what strategy is played out. Ensuring the CEO is involved (and votes for the strategy) ensures that the Board is unified in terms of collective agreement in terms of direction and implementation.

3.     The separation of Board and SMT (i.e. no linkage) is weak and offers a subservience that having the CEO on the Board would lessen.

4.     The rationale for Boards is to do three things (Charity Commission): Compliance, Prudence and Care. These are things that the CEO has to be central to.

5.     The CEO probably (in law) acts as a Shadow Trustee anyway. This means that the CEO is as responsible as any Trustee for the actions of the Charity but has no vote at all in Board meetings. This is responsibility without any representation and often leads to conflict.

The negative issues brought up are:

1.     conflict of interest – the Remunerations and Nominations Committee of individual charities can be properly asked to rule on this. Beyond salaries,  there is rarely an issue that comes up where conflict arises as a result of the CEO being a Trustee. Whether on issues like the approval of budgets or strategy, appointment of new Trustees or whatever, the CEO is normally heavily involved and a vote solidifies the process.

2.     Over-bearing CEOs – an over-bearing CEO will be the same whether on the Board or not. It is for the Board to ensure that none of its members outlast their value and this is a key requirement for the Chair.

3.     Governance and the ability to take the CEO to task for performance issues will be reduced – the CEO is a key member of the organization whether on the Board or not. Being able to vote on an issue does not reduce the roles of the Board. Where there is a serious issue with the Chief Executive, then this would be initially an issue for the Chair and possibly the Remuneration and Nominations Committee to handle. Any issue on the future of the Chief Executive would rule that person out of voting.

Other information

Charity Commission / ACEVO viewpoint

The Charity Commission seems to want to defend the status quo (where, according to an ACEVO report from 2007, around 5.2% of CEO’s were Trustees of that organisation).

The CC points out the dangers of conflict of interest over salary and similar issues. This is overcome everywhere else where committees are set up independently of the CEO as required and where CEO’s are asked to leave the room if there is a conflict (as conflict would be dealt with for anyone in such a situation).

The CC has no real view on this issue but also points out bureaucratically to watch out that the Articles don’t prohibit the change – which ours don’t.

ACEVO

In a 2007 report:

There was support for the following initiatives:

1. A code of good practice on governance (98% chief executives, 95% chairs).

2. Regular review of governance practices by external experts (68% chief executives,58% chairs).

3. More flexibility with respect to board structures (50% chief executives and 33% chairs thought that chief executives should be voting trustees).

 

It goes on:

The role of the chief executive as a bridge – by Paddy Fitzgerald

In the third sector the general practice is for trustee boards where normally trustees are non-executive, chaired by an independent and with the chief executive, who is rarely a trustee, in attendance. Here the primary concerns of the trustees are the mission and future of the organisation, while shorter term issues are for the most part dealt with by a management committee chaired by the chief executive.

 

If this model is to work, the chief executive becomes the bridge between the future concerns of the trust and the short-term issues of the management committee. Most importantly, the chief executive will be responsible for overseeing the journey from short to long term and in deploying management resources to explore this and identify the issues along the way. In this way the chief executive brings to the attention of the trust shorter term questions requiring resolution, and engages the executive staff in the consideration of longer term matters.

 

This is a much more powerful vision than one of the chief executive as a non trustee

passively awaiting the instructions of his or her board. The bridge role requires positive engagement with the ability to exert powerful advocacy in both trust and management committee, and as leadership becomes less and less a matter of autocratic direction and more and more a matter of persuasion and shared endeavour, so it becomes vital that the chief executive is an inclusive member of both trust and management committee.

 

Trusts too should value the extra dimension provided by the sense of a unified team, and should welcome the chief executive as one of their own, for it is under these circumstances that the chief executive is most likely to engage other trustees most, chief executives cannot escape legal obligations placed on trustees since they will be judged as shadow directors with the same penalties in the event of any major problem, so it is in their interests to don the mantle of a Trustee and participate wholly.

 

The conclusion may be that the formal appointment as a trustee aids the chief executive in this bridge role and is one of the defining characteristics of the third sector. Recognition of this role for the chief executive is essential to staff appraisal and through this to the management and leadership programmes aimed at staff development and management succession.

 

 

On its FAQ’s – current – ACEVO lists the types of Board structure:

 

Q: What is the appropriate level of executive involvement in governance?

A: This relates to the structure of organisational boards. Board structures fall into four categories:

  1. The wholly executive board: found most often in small commercial companies. For obvious reasons, such boards usually struggle to offer any independent scrutiny of executive decisions. Such boards are rarely found in the non-profit sector, and it is unlikely that the Charity Commission would permit such a structure for registered charities.
  2. The two-tier board: found in parts of Europe, comprises a ‘supervisory board’ to represent stakeholder interests, and an ‘operational board’ to drive the organisation’s performance. Some charity boards may in practice resemble this structure, delegating operational decisions to a ‘senior management team’. However, a genuine operational board, unlike a senior management team, has a legally recognised governance role.
  3. The unitary board: classic model for business in the UK and Commonwealth countries, includes both executive and non-executive directors, with equal status. Despite the ambiguity concerning executive directors’ role, this model is recommended by many experts on corporate governance. The structure embodies the tension between conformance and performance. If working properly, it can combine executives’ detailed knowledge of the business with the more detached scrutiny of non-executives.
  4. The wholly non-executive board: found commonly in commercial companies based in the USA as well as in the British third sector. Third sector board member are usually, but not always, unpaid.
  5. Recognising that no one model will be perfect for every organisation, ACEVO recommends that its members conduct an audit of their governance arrangements, which should include an examination of governance structures as well as good practice.

ACEVO has not formally proposed a major change and has not acted on this serious issue – although it has a Reform Group which highlights the issue – http://www.acevo.org.uk/Policy+Advocacy/Activity/Governance . However, it is clear to me that the practice of CEO’s not being on the board is a serious deficiency and one that should be rectified across the board.

 

ACEVO – POLICY: UNITARY BOARDS

(From the ACEVO website)

Alongside paying trustees, the creation of unitary boards is one of the most controversial issues of governance debate within the third sector. Traditional third sector governance models have a two tier board system – an executive board (with employed directors) and a more strategic non-executive board of trustees. In comparison, the most common structure within private sector governance is the unitary board – where non-executives and executives combine to form a single structure.

The most commonly stated advantages of a two-tier system are the importance of an objective governance structure (the non-exec board) which can both examine issues at a strategic level whilst also remaining free of management influence.

However, many ACEVO members have reported that they do not believe a two-tier system is the most effective method of governance for their organisations and would like to combine all or part of the two boards to increase efficacy. This potentially offers great strength in combining the strategic views of the trustees with the organisational knowledge of the executives. This inter-action works because those involved are Directors and share a joint responsibility with full accountability in law.

In 2007, ACEVO invited Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the General Social Care Council, to chair a Commission of Inquiry into governance in the third sector. Improvement governance was found to be a major issue for the sector and often not focussed on enough by individual organisations. Other key findings included a general lack of board appraisal or training, poor trustee diversity and concern over the transparency and capacity of the sector’s governance. The Commission of Inquiry suggested that organisations should review their governance arrangements, the board structure being one of them, to ensure effectiveness and suitability. ACEVO strongly believes that each organisation should be able to adopt its optimal governance structure and is actively campaigning on this matter to reduce regulatory concerns around conflicts of interest.

Own comment: ACEVO should now actively promote CEO’s on to main Boards.

“Farewell, fair cruelty” – The Age of anti-welfare

The “Safety Net”

Ian Duncan-Smith has introduced a new system of welfare payments in the UK that seeks to better link payments to the sick, disabled and those out of work to their ability to find work and get paid for work. His (and his government’s stance) is that since the introduction of welfare payments (brought in by the post-WWII Labour government following the Beveridge Report in 1942), the world has changed and welfare has become a “right”  that needs to be changed.

Churchill had previously voiced his view that a safety net be provided to all those in society who fell on hard times. In 2006, Greg Clark  (now Financial Secretary to the Treasury) urged the Tories not to be caught up in Churchillian rhetoric as: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum – that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.”

Mr Duncan-Smith, according to Peter Oborn, writing in the Daily Telegraph “is animated by a profoundly Christian vision of free will, redemption, and what it means to be human in a fallen and imperfect world.” It is this vision that hearkens back to Churchill and pushes this coalition government in the direction of the 19th Century.

Individual vs. State

The balance in any modern, developed State is to balance the interests of individuals and State (and also at least think through the requirements and abilities of the third sector / civil society). While, as Oborn writes, Margaret Thatcher ignored the welfare system and the NHS by refusing to substantively alter them, and while Blair and most obviously Brown made them more a political football, Duncan-Smith has taken a view that individuals must be given the incentive to work and stand on their feet.

This fits well in a society still in a state of shock following the banking crisis of 2007/8 and where our sovereign debt position is a massive risk for our future.

It fits with Tory doctrine of the 19th Century (although not with the post-WWII consensus that MacMillan and succeeding Tories espoused).

It fits partially with the Liberals (although not necessarily the Social Democrat wing in the Liberal Democrats) in that the balance between individuals and the State should always veer toward the former – although Liberals will usually point to freedoms and open society issues rather than the “incentives” that Duncan-Smith talks about.

Welfare Stands Alone

The problem is that while it is possible that Duncan-Smith has a mission and feels genuinely that welfare needs to be changed, the world is not just about welfare. It is also about economics and opportunity. Attempting to change welfare benefits (which will naturally come down hardest on the weakest sections of society) without successfully managing up the fortunes of the wider economy and critical areas such as education (a crucial force for change and a massive “enabler” in ensuring people have the skills and capabilities that allow them to stand on their feet) cannot work.

Even Samuel Smiles (the 19th Century author of Self-Help) said: “I would not have any one here think that, because I have mentioned individuals who have raised themselves by self-education from poverty to social eminence, and even wealth, these are the chief marks to be aimed at. That would be a great fallacy. Knowledge is of itself one of the highest enjoyments. The ignorant man passes through the world dead to all pleasures, save those of the senses… Every human being has a great mission to perform, noble faculties to cultivate, a vast destiny to accomplish. He should have the means of education, and of exerting freely all the powers of his godlike nature.” (my underlining).

Government is split into different areas of control and it is a real dilemma. If David Cameron really wishes to go back to the 19th Century and bring in welfare reforms that attempt to force people to work or lose benefits, then the same Government has, at least, to generate the capabilities that will allow them to do so.

This means that George Osborne and his Ministers have to attack our substantial problems of growth (or the lack of it) while we seem to be entering a Japanese-style lost decade.

This means that Michael Gove (himself on a mission) has to ensure that those areas of greatest need in education (which are the areas most adversely impacted by Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms) receive the resources (investment and brainpower) that they need. This could, for example, mean forcing top quality schools (from private and public sectors) to link up with worst performing schools in the country much as Lord Adonis tried to do voluntarily as he describes in his recent book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”.

Of course, this means jointly pursuing policies as a Government rather than addressing individual issues one at a time because individual Ministers want to make a name for themselves.

Of course, this is the job of a Prime Minister (and in a Coalition, the Deputy Prime Minister) to see that the key decisions of each Ministry complement each other. They have failed to see how disjointed it all is and failed to understand the changes that have been put in place since the 19th Century that repels the drive to go back in time.

Back to the Poor Laws

There is a real danger that the failure to articulate a vision by our politicians, allied to an economic position that is perilous is leading the UK (or at least England) back to the Poor laws as articulated in 1834. This was the age of the workhouse as described so well by Charles Dickens. The 19th Century zeal, which Duncan-Smith is bringing to bear, is allied to monetarism and austerity together with an education philosophy which focuses on individual schools (Academies) without much understanding of how to best ensure the worst ones thrive.

This means that a “perfect storm” is likely to erupt: an economy of austerity, a goodbye to welfare and a lack of educational opportunity where it is needed. This may be seen in the future as a Government that forgot the riots of 2011 much like the riots against the Poor Laws in the 1830’s.

Modern times deserve modern remedies and better leadership

The challenge for any Government in a post-2007 world is to sufficiently understand the role it places in providing the underpinning for a thriving society. This is not the old Tory rule from the top – where the top 3% get the resources and everyone hopes for a trickle down effect. The class system in the UK – no longer just three – may have been dispersed but the political class may not have yet picked up on their duties.

Whether or not many welfare recipients have pro-actively taken themselves out of the work markets and work ethics, Government’s job is to enable them to come back into the market. This means motivating and educating at the same time as gradually changing the rewards structure.

Tell a workforce that they are pathetic and they will become so. Tell people that they are work-shy scroungers and they will not co-operate. Cameron and Osborne (and Gove) understand little about leadership. They want to show leadership by forcing issues not by motivation (or nudging – I understand they read that book – shame they never read any on good leadership) in the same way that the Upper Classes ruled in the 19th Century.

Modern times need a government that motivates and has a vision that is constant throughout – not a bunch of managers with no sense of leadership.

This should mean that rhetoric changes to encouragement not estrangement in a way that Miliband’s desire for “One Nation” (Disraeli) is meant to work. Within that rhetoric (maybe the start of some vision), the economic policies of sustainable growth have to be applied not just hope that austerity will somehow work and shift us to private economy growth; within that rhetoric, an education system that drives the worst schools to function along with the connectivity with local people (including parents); within that rhetoric, a welfare system that rewards such involvement in the community – not just salaried work.

The latter means that people should be able in a modern society to be able to work in a variety of areas – within civil society – rather than for a pittance in a salaried job. This also means spending time with kids where the worst performing schools are victims of poverty and estrangement of parents and local leadership.

This is joined up Government where each part of government takes fully into account what is happening in other sectors of society. It is not what we have now.

Farewell, fair cruelty was said by Viola in Twelfth Night – Viola was trying it on – a woman pretending to be a man.

Duncan-Smith is worried about welfare beneficiaries who shouldn’t be getting welfare – people who are not what they say they are.

This government is pretending to be showing leadership – it isn’t. It is merely repeating the mistakes of their forebears from 200 years ago.

Farewell welfare, indeed. We run the risk of becoming an anti-welfare society that alienates huge sections of it while the rest of government stands aside. Time for some vision and leadership and for this government to understand the impact one part has on another – Duncan-Smith needs Osborne and Gove to help him succeed.  Malvolio’s experiences in Twelfth Night may also be educational for Ian Duncan-Smith – he was also a man more sinned against than sinning.

Schools get fleeced – and we all watch

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently published an article (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/25/schools-fleeced-by-it-scammers/comment-page-1/#comment-9117) following the exposure on Panorama (BBC 1) that schools in the UK had been “fleeced” by IT companies (“scammers”). The article and Panorama drew attention to schools which are burdened by the need to run themselves as businesses and are often ill-equipped to do so when set against the complicated requirements of funding, procurement, suppliers and the like.

 

The BIJ summed up the problem with the thought that the FMSiS (Financial Management Standard in Schools) had been wrongly abolished and that the Government should think again. It was abolished after it had become a paper ticking exercise as reported by the Government in 2010 in their White Paper – “The Importance of Teaching” – http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0067711/government-announces-end-of-complex-school-financial-reporting-tool.

 

The BIJ article missed the fact that most of the schemes that Panorama reported on were entered into while the FMSiS was in place!

 

Why is Finance so hard for non-profits (public and private sector)?

 

This does not just happen in Schools – it happens wherever greater knowledge is brought to bear.

 

So, the banks have run out of control and, five years’ later, we remain stunned that the financial regulators did not see this coming – or even understand the huge range of sub-prime schemes, poor management controls, over-leveraging, bad morality, lack of risk aversion, inability for banks to fail, dislike of customers and similar.

 

In the same way, companies like Enron fooled their highly paid auditors (some of whom connived with them) – we never learned much from that or from the countless, other financial scams that have been served up on unsuspecting publics since at least the south Sea Bubble in 1720 and for thousands of years before.

 

But, we expect more from public sector and the third sector organisations that supposedly guard our taxes and donations. What makes it so hard for them to adequately ensure that the financial and support arms of those organisations are able to be a good as all those they work with?

 

Where the incentives are

 

Of course, much has been written about how the wealth potential of banks suck in those with the highest intelligence and motivation (and maybe those with the lowest ethics) and that the regulators are filled with those who cannot compete – maybe those who failed to make it in banking themselves.

 

Enron was full of highly motivated and driven people who bought into a scheme (or schemes) and worked like fury to implement their scam / scheme. The manipulation of an energy market was not understood by the regulators and auditors just as auditors and clients failed to understand how Bernie Madoff was making such returns on their “investments”.

 

In a money-driven economy, which has created tremendous wealth for society, there are, at the margins and even more in the centre, incentives provided to people that lure those who are massively motivated and driven to participate – to work 24 hours a day, to spend their time working up schemes to make money and their companies profitable. Business is a money-driven part of the economy in a way that the non-profit sectors (be they public or private sector) are not. The latter are full of people driven (and maybe just as motivated) by other things – a passion for human rights, for education, for people, for society – but not for the thing that drives those they may meet at the interface of private sector and the non-profits.

 

As Galbraith wrote in The Affluent Society, public goods are always at a disadvantage in a market-driven economy and the crucial problems always exist at the interface between the two.  I tackled this is a previous post – https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=192&action=edit – and the inability of societies to establish how to provide the “social balance” to which Galbraith refers enables the problems to persist – such as the fleecing of schools in the UK.

 

Enabling the “social balance”?

 

The “social balance” (Galbraith ibid) is about how society reacts to private enterprise. The most obvious example is the automobile – private industry propels the development of cars but it is the public sector that provides the roads, traffic control and policing, emergency services and hospitals (usually), pollution control and similar. India is a great and recent example – http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/india-car-sales-soar-where-054302682.html. But, the ability of the private sector runs well ahead of the ability of the public sector to react.

 

Nowhere is this lack of social balance clearer than in the provision of expertise in “back office” areas in the public sector and in the third sector. While their front of office capabilities may be excellent, the non-profit sector cannot, in the main, recruit the best people (it cannot offer financial incentives to match anything like the private sector) and therefore its systems and processes fall well behind.

 

This is compounded by the continuous belief by government that they have to “do something” directly (like the FMSiS above) and in the third sector that anything spent outside of front end is a waste of money. Donors (whether governments, trusts and foundations, companies or individuals) suddenly have a different mindset as soon as they donate. How many would ask companies to stop spending on finance operations – yet, many donors insist that their donations can only be applied to front end work – the cause – and nothing to overheads. While it is good to keep overheads low, governance and financial management dictate that these “enabling” areas of any organization (like people management training) are as good as the front end operations so as not to stymie the work of the charity, NGO or pubic sector organization.

 

Having worked in all sectors (with most of my working life in the private sector) it is clear to me that the non-profit sectors are continuously starved of capability and expertise in the areas that could make them far more efficient and capable – not just to survive but also to enable far better work to be accomplished. If they work well it is in spite of the problems put in their way. Most don’t manage and the failures of the public sector to manage large IT projects, for example or the non-profit sector to survive continue.

 

So, how can the non-profits develop a response to the needed social balance so that they don’t get fleeced?

 

Pro-activity in the social balance

 

Governments and those who provide central governance to the non-profit sectors have undertaken so many actions and some have provided stability. But, each sector and those within it are challenged continuously.

 

What is needed is first, recognition that there is a problem. Each sector should assess where the main problems lie and government has to step up and signal that it will not do everything but begin to be the chief enabler for the non-profits. For example, restrictive funding for charities, whereby donors only provide money for front-end purposes, should not be allowed. The practice is akin to shareholders telling companies which part of the business their funding is allowed on. It is not a loan – it is a donation and restrictions mean more bureaucracy and less ability for the charity to manage itself.

 

If a donor believes that a charity spends too much on overheads, it can withhold donations just like a shareholder can invest elsewhere – but restricting funding in this way is counter-productive.

 

In the UK, this is something for the charities Commission and government to act on.

 

Second, there has to be a stepping up on ability – which will lead to improved processes and systems (although improvements in each need money as well and the proposal above is one way of directing more into this area).

 

This stepping up of ability should be driven by government who should require firms of accountants to do what the legal profession does – provide at least 2% pro-bono capability into non-profits. I have been highly impressed by law firms’ ability to do excellent pro-bono – less so by the finance industry.

 

CSR divisions of companies should also be driving their best finance people into non-profits – in a meaningful way to address the social imbalance.

 

Governments should look to reward those who go from the private sector into the public or third sector (even for a time) with tax incentives (much like students having to repay their student loans). It is not a great time to do this, but it would indicate a lot.

 

Third, the big accounting organisations should ensure that they focus more attention on public sector and third sector – understanding the problems and devising exams and maybe alternative paths to accreditation rather than the one-size-fits-all approach. Certainly, the CIPFA and IPSASB provide the basics for the public sector but the incentivisation for the best to go into that sector let alone education or charities / NGO’s is far less and the number of accountants that enter the charity sector (for example) with the same skill levels and drive as those in the private sector is small.

 

Fourth, trustees from private sector organisations have to become involved – not just from a governance standpoint but setting examples and putting the bar as high as it needs to go to make the enablers work. This is hands-on stuff not just remote governance.

 

Separate sectors, common interests

 

Except in a society where the three sectors don’t exist (e.g. communist states), the challenge is greatest at the intersections of society – where the sectors clash. Yet, as in the example of automobiles above (or any other transportation systems), different sectors live off each other – and the charity sector fills many of the gaps that society does not see fit to fill in private or public sectors.

 

The sectors need to be different, of course, but there does need to be a far better understanding of the problems that our economic structures throw up and how to deal with them or fleecing of our schools will recur but be seen to be a mere tip of the social iceberg.

 

 

 

 

Institutionalized!

Will Self’s excellent new book “Umbrella” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Umbrella-Will-Self/dp/1408820145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348396331&sr=8-1) brilliantly describes the torture of individuals put into “mental institutions” and how (until very recently in the UK) they were appallingly treated.

 

Old people in Care Homes have similarly been shown (one example had a miniature camera secured in the room of a care home) to have been malnourished, beaten and generally abused.

 

Maybe it is improper to use these examples of Institutions that have become uncaring and out of control to symbolize the problems faced regularly by all of us, but it is no coincidence. We have all become “Institutionalized” by the edifices that society has created to carry out the basic functions of society. This is not new. Ossification of institutions is a regular occurrence in society. The reason that monarchs are overthrown, for example, is because the institution of monarchy – the rule of society by one person or clique – becomes, eventually, intolerable to society in general.

 

Cracks in the Institutional Wall

 

We are all confronted by Institutions throughout our lives. From hospitals to school, from government departments to businesses, individuals live their lives working in and being confronted by Institutions.

 

Institutions have been defined as: “An institution is a system of rules, beliefs, norms and organizations that together generate a regularity of (social) behavior” (Greif, Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade).

 

They provide “equilibria” to society as a method or ordering our behavior. Greif also developed notions of dynamic institutions to show how institutions change through time.

 

Common Threads’ focus is that the institutions developed in the 19th Century for politics, economics, education and other key areas of society don’t work well in the 21st Century. The aim has been to generate some discussion of where the problems may be and look at some potential solutions rather than try to develop a theoretical analysis (when this is being done elsewhere – for example, in the area of economics at ESNIE (European School on New Institutional Economics – http://esnie.org/).

 

Major economic dislocations as we have seen since 2007 in the West – the banking disasters leading to huge debt problems leading to depression in Greece and the potential for this throughout Europe – could presage major changes in the way institutions develop. Often, the cracks in the wall have to be very large before we either build a new wall or try to fill in the cracks – which is what is being done now.

 

The changes in our institutions that are being made – small changes in banking (mainly in terms of individuals) are akin to deck chairs being moved around on the Titanic. Whether in our political institutions or our economic ones (or wherever large organizations have been set up to provide societal equilibrium) the danger is that they do not change enough to enable society to prosper – rather, built on the foundations of the 19th Century, they fail to deal with the issues that face them (and us) today.

 

Building Order out of Chaos – Challenging Entropy?

 

Just like the walls of Jericho were built to keep out intruders (subject to the odd trumpet) and we build firewalls in our computer systems to keep our systems secure, society builds our Institutions also to have effective walls against change and to build ourselves a cover against the outside world. Maybe we are genetically primed – our cells work within walls that allow us to withstand the chaos that would otherwise ensue. The Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially describes entropy – the natural tendency for good energy to dissipate into bad (useless) energy. Our life on this planet is a constant grind against the power of entropy and, maybe, our desire to build this equilibrium is a natural and instinctive drive for order within chaos.

 

This natural tendency to build order exists throughout civilization and can produce stability and contentment. But, as Darwin wrote: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” (Origin of Species).

 

The key is that Institutions cannot be left to ossify but have to change to meet the changes in environment that exist externally. New order has to be developed constantly.

 

In business, in relatively free markets, businesses come and go on a regular basis. The FTSE 100 started in 1984 and today only three companies from those 100 remain in the FTSE 100 – GKN, Rolls Royce and Imperial Tobacco. This is because the FTSE 100 reconstitutes itself every three months. The Dow Jones started in 1896 – who remembers American Cotton Oil or National Lead or United States Rubber? That is not to belittle business – there is a tough economic law that works hard to reward success and punish failure. Companies that don’t work hard to change to meet the needs of the external environment simply fail. Apple is a great example of a company that was close to collapse in the 1980’s but (under Jobs) completely redirected itself so that it is now the highest valued company in the world. But, for how long? Most companies fail (70% in the first three years).

 

Taking Down the Walls

 

Within the rest of society, change is harder. In our fight against the ravages of chaos, we allow pressure to build up, often learning the wrong lessons. This so often leads to an explosion as pressure gets too much. Society is not very good at understanding where the pressure is building. We defend the status quo for too long and then find ourselves unable to contain the whirlwind that attacks us.

 

In the UK, we have prided ourselves on our ability to change gradually so as to release the pressure before it gets too much. Not since the middle of the 17th Century has England fought a Civil War. This is held up to be the result of the changing democratic scene – from Magna Carta through rule by nobles to rule by the Commons (elected nobles); constant enlargement of the vote from 1832 onwards to women in 1918 (as long as they were over 30 and lived in a decent house) to 18 year-olds in 1969.

 

The walls have been dismantled brick by brick and most democracies follow a similar path.

 

The challenge now is that, in an age where developed societies have reached a decent level of economic wealth, politicians are losing any connection with those they are supposed to represent. Only around 50% of the voting population bothers to vote in general elections. More are now linking up with one-issue groups who they believe will push agendas on their behalf rather than hope that a political party will (by the mere casting of a vote every five years) carry out a manifesto that cannot meet most aspirations.

 

This means that the one issue lobbyists are getting greater powers to influence. Their techniques and ability to make change happen is developing constantly. Originally, such groups were primarily labour organizations (Trades Unions) and, in the UK, this developed into the Labour Party. Now, there are groups within the Third Sector that campaign on any range of issues from the environment to health, from taxation to education, from peace campaigners and human rights to fox-hunting (both sides). Organized campaign groups now operate as a key part of society so that individuals are now useful only at elections.

 

This means that more Institutions have been developed to challenge the political parties (it happens throughout the world). This is not a challenge to the political process – it may even solidify it by shoring up the political process within a wall of campaigning institutions.

 

What role for Society?

 

It is in this context that several have questioned the future in which we grow Institutions to work with other Institutions to govern (or run other aspects of our lives). This response to the walls around politics and government may be a natural one but is questionable as the new Institutions (of the campaigners and lobbyers) are run by a small number of people and funded in many ways. They are not accountable in the same way as political parties are supposed to be (and continue as long as they are funded). Their funds come from a variety of sources and confusion exists amongst society in separating out charitable work from campaigning and lobbying. In the UK, there is no register of lobbying so there is no transparency that is at least attempted in the US (which has its own problems owing to funding regulations that allow companies to fund to whatever level).

 

There is a real danger that the way we are evolving the democratic process is anti-democratic. Democracy is supposed to be government by the people. We have a three-tier system now whereby professional politicians are influenced by a small number (relative to the population) of professionally-run organizations throughout a term of office – remembering the individual citizens only when elections loom.

 

Is this the best we can do?

 

Building the Walls from the Bottom Up

 

In Australia (as I have mentioned in an earlier post), The Centre for Civil Society (under Vern Hughes) – http://www.civilsociety.org.au/ – has developed some new insights and a challenge to the norm in http://www.civilsociety.org.au/CivilSocietyPolitics.htm.

 

This is worthy of investigation as one means of providing greater involvement in our own future.

 

Also critical is the use of technology. Changes in the means of communication have always brought with them the means to radically change society. The printing press, the telegraph, the telephone, the TV, the computer and the internet, the mobile phone, wireless comms – all lead to more and faster information and an enabling of the individual.

 

This is a critical cause of concern for leaders of legalist states such as in China but also offers challenges (and opportunities) to so-called democracies.

 

Individuals are now empowered by technology by dis-empowered by institutions. This means that empowerment is taken up by online shopping or social networking rather much more than for social change or betterment. It means that civil society will continue to be badly served by national and international institutions that meet lobbyists in the corridors of power but are insufficiently grappling with society itself (rather the funneling through funded organizations).

 

Yet, power exists. Libya is a exciting example. Just recently, armed militia groups (a powerful central non-government organization) were ousted by people – civil society coming together to say, “thanks for toppling Gaddafi, your work is done!” In Egypt, Tahrir Square was the centre of civil society’s success to overthrow a dictator. Here, the Military Institutions delayed the correct response and we will have to wait to see if the elected President, Morsi, will serve his citizens or other Institutions (including religious).

 

Civil society (we, the people) should see the 21st Century as one where we are allowed to deliver. The forces for 19th Century equilibria often stand in the way of progress – and are standing in the way of serious climate change policies on an international scale. Institutions set up to effect change may be set up for the right reasons but we are now institutionalized and should seriously re-evaluate our reaction to the new Institutions just as we challenge the old ones. If we need a wall, then we should be blowing that trumpet to unsettle the existing ones.

 

Left-right, left-right: Parties and cliff edges

In the UK, Members of Parliament go back to work after the summer recess. All the talk is about Cameron’s reshuffle and leadership issues: Cameron is accused of acting like a “mouse”; Clegg’s leadership is under threat from his own party; the two Ed’s of Labour (Miliband and Balls) are said to be continuously arguing and that the phrase “two Eds are better than one” may not be true in this case.

More seriously, as the post-summer issues are traditionally short-term nonsense, last week’s Prospect Magazine has Peter Kellner (President of the pollsters, youGuv) writing an intriguing article on how the Liberal Democrats’ support has collapsed since the last General Election  http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/death-by-coalition/. As a result of entering into coalition with the Conservatives, their support has gone from 24% to 10% – which would result in a fall from 57 to around 10-12 seats if an election were to be held today.

While much of Kellner’s response to the polling made good sense, one aspect of the questions his pollsters asked concerns me greatly. This aspect focuses on how much to the left or right the party is.

The concern is this: surely, this form of questioning is out of date in the realpolitik of 21st Century thinking and 21st Century politics. Surely, in an age of individualism and the lobbying by NGO’s and many one-issue organisations of one issue arguments, the left / right analogy is no longer relevant?

Is politics really about left vs right anymore?

The left and right of politics were named after where the French parties sat in the National Assembly in 1789 at the time of the revolution. In 1791, the Legislative Assembly had the “innovators” on the left, moderates in the middle and the defenders of the Constitution on the right. This became the dominant march of politics in the 20th Century. Different and violently opposed political doctrines literally fought it out on the battlefield throughout the 20th Century. Fascism and Nazi-ism on the right, Communism on the left were the extremes in the battlefields of China, Spain, Cambodia, Europe (in WWII) or wherever the post-feudal wars (those that we fought up to the end of the first world war) were fought. Innovation became muddled with socialism and communism; defenders of the constitution became muddled with economic rigour and libertarianism capitalism (never the manner of the “ancient regime”).

Right and left became doctrinal and, with the fight for the rights of labour against the owner class, the 20th Century adopted the political norm.

Is economics an argument of right and left?

Now that the 21st Century is into its twelfth year, the left / right argument appears completely out of date. Sure, there are arguments about economics that will be with us forever: from libertarian, tea party protagonists all the way to Keynesian interventionists. But, because capitalism is now the standard economic and accepted model, the battle is not right vs left in economics but which form of economic model around the capitalist norm. Arguments are much less severe in developed nations and turn on moderate changes in taxation.

Much bigger issues, such as ending tax havens, transfer pricing, corporate power, corporate governance, the role of banks, corruption and many other crucial issues are stymied as politicians argue over the short-term vote catching issues – 1p or 1c on income tax, for instance.

Is the way we are governed right vs left?

Communism or socialism now only survives on the periphery. China is not a communist state – its economics are capitalist within a statist structure and the party ensures a legalist control (it is above the law). This is not communism. Russia is now a centrally controlled capitalist enterprise (run as a large corporate machine). The rest of the world operates in a democratic to quasi-democratic state. Hereditary monarchy is now mainly for the tourists and the press (celebrities within a celebrity culture).

There is little traditional right vs left in government.

Is the environment a subject for right vs left?

Here, confusion reigns. Traditional right-wingers in the UK (from a Tory mould) can be classed as conservative when it comes to the environment. They often oppose untrammelled modernity and defend the right to conserve (as “Conservatives”). Yet, they oppose green movements because they associate them with restrictions on economic growth. Roger Scruton in “how to Think Seriously About the Planet – the case for an environmental conservativism” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Think-Seriously-About-Planet-ebook/dp/B00829L62C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346585639&sr=8-1 puts the case for the right to take back control of the agenda.

The affects of CO2 are now disputed only at the periphery but the case for changing our ways is not agreed. This is now much more about individual nations wanting their own freedom and more about the problem of worldwide agreements – not a right vs left issue at all.

Does politics need right vs left?

Less and less people vote in general elections. Maybe the reason is that the left vs right arguments that drew people’s interest and motivation are no longer prevalent. The motivation to vote for broad platforms which mainly focus on short-term issues designed to entrap voters based on their short-term economic concerns is weak. Tradition still subjects most voters to choose their party and most political parties focus on swing votes – the 2% that Romney and Obama will work to win over in the USA, for example. The 2% that means that 98% are virtually disenfranchised!

The traditional view of politics is one where political parties are formed to organize themselves so that they can attract votes from the individuals who are not organized. This is changing.

Individuals have always formed into non-political party groupings – from trades unions to employer associations, from charities to NGO’s. Many of these groups are single-issue campaigning groups or lobbyists that work hard to influence political opinion and political parties directly and via the media. These range from economic groups to environmental, from governance to charitable, health to education – the spectrum is vast.

This third sector (usually a reference to charities, but comprising all citizen action groups, from sports clubs onwards) is not primarily left of right, but single focus – taking up an issue or cause around some issues. Their influence on government is substantial. Most Government Bills are developed as a result of significant lobbying from single-issue groups. For example, the Bribery Act came into being as a direct result of such lobbying and formal meetings between Government and a diverse range of lobby groups from CBI to NGO’s.

This means that the ancient Greek form of democracy – where every individual is supposed to have an equal say in Government – which was never the norm in most democracies as political parties formed – is now fractured into more layers. Government now relies on the lobbyists and reacts more to them than the community or study groups assembled from the general populace prior to elections.

This means that the left and right of politics (already under strain anyway) are meaningless. Single-issue groups lobby on single issues and political parties, no longer fighting on the issues of left vs right, sway as they are buffeted by those who are able to articulate the issues and now the means to communicate effectively. This means that the individual voter is now even more disenfranchised as it is only a small fraction of the population that is engaged in this process – and that, even at elections, the driving force behind vote-catching is bound to short-term or lobby focused.

A new politics?

In an era of globalization and instant communications, individual nations are less able to maintain an individualist position. Nevertheless, as the Olympics and Paralympics have shown in the UK, national pride remains important and is a reason why the Eurozone crisis will endure much longer than hoped.

However, within this national pride, it is likely to be an era when individualism is also crucial. The mass movements of left vs right are no longer relevant and single issues are much stronger in motivating and exciting.

If there is any truth in this then it is interesting to note the preamble to the Liberal Democrats Federal Constitution:

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.”

In the nonsense over cabinet reshuffles and personalities, it is probably the case that very few even know where to look for the above statement http://www.libdems.org.uk/who_we_are.aspx  – (which is found on the Liberal Democrat website after its coalition agreement – which is all short-term).

Yet, it could be the clarion call for our age – a liberal theme that is far more “of our age” than the 20th Century arguments of right or left.

If right vs left is truly out of date, then open society, balancing liberty, equality and community, individualism cherished, developing talents, creativity and the rest within a coherent community is a proper and enticing call that should be further developed. Apart from a better focus on the environment (our natural capital) which demands more from us, the preamble is not right or left – it is also not middle ground but moves the argument away from traditional left vs right.

Citizens of the 21st Century world maybe deserve something more from our governing elites that have not moved from their 19th Century models.  How we balance our competing single issues and how citizens get to have their say in the crucial issues that determine how we spend our lives is what 21st Century politics should be about. Maybe parties like the Liberal Democrats should think of the themes that will dominate thinking in the 21st Century. Maybe that is a way to get some common ground with citizens – the voters.

Do we Value the Charitable Sector?

As the Coalition Government slips worryingly through its third year, the value given to the Third Sector (or the Civil Society) is more uncertain. The Big Society is being challenged as it has not been for many years through financial austerity in national and local government. This has had a dramatic impact on charities in the UK that have been set up to serve the community and who rely on government (national and local) income. In Osborne’s last budget, charitable giving has been hit hard by limiting that which is tax allowable to £50,000 in any one year for individuals.

The charitable sector is strong in the UK, but threatened by this reduced government spending, reduced spending by companies and potential reductions in individual giving as we tumble back into recession.

The variety of charities is vast – from those set up to further medical research, those working to improve health and welfare, those set up to do international development, social clubs and societies, sports clubs and a host of others. Even schools are charities under UK law. This makes it hard to understand the role they have in society.

However, they stand alongside the Governing sector (government) and the products and services sector (business) and the fourth sector or fourth estate – journalism. Maybe that’s also where many NGO’s lie these days – funded to do investigations into society as newspapers once were. The fourth estate now contains many NGO’s – the likes of ONE, Enough, Global Witness, parts of Greenpeace, Oxfam, Save the Children, Amnesty and many others – where charitable work continues alongside the investigations and journalism and lobbying.

The Charitable Sector – Filling the (Massive) Gap

The role of charities is therefore complex – even if in the minds of most funders it is primarily to provide help to those sectors of society that are left out by the State and by the remainder of civil society. Charities exist to drive funds and assistance locally, regionally, nationally and internationally where it is deemed that government does not, cannot or will not.

Whether it is DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) or similar assisting in emergency international funding, or Oxfam or Save the Children, or local hospices, each has been set up by individuals who saw a gap in care and raced to fix the problem. The whole area of social business has also sprung up in between business and charities. The roles are evolving as niches appear where need is believed to occur – it is a complex and adaptive system that is constantly evolving.

Each society is developing its own way from the bottom up – very few governments are sufficiently totalitarian to impose its blueprint on its people. In North Korea, this may be so but elsewhere government and business leave gaps that the market cannot satisfy and that civil society attempts to fill.

If the role of the charity sector (outside of the fourth estate incumbents) is to fill the gaps that business and government leaves – because they identify the need first, provide funding that is otherwise unattainable, provide better expertise, more focused concern or whatever other motivation – then how should society be developing to maximize its positive effectiveness? While this note focuses on the UK, it is as relevant to the international community.

Valuing the Charitable Sector

 

It is now time that government in the UK (and elsewhere) took a long, hard look at the charity sector and saw it as a real sector of the economy. The last budget was a good example of how taxation and benefits were structured towards businesses and individuals and where civil society (or the Third Sector) was seen as a peripheral activity. This was a slight on that sector.

The seemingly thoughtless and throw-away issues such as the limit of £50,000 on tax-free giving was typical of government not seeing the organized part of civil society as being defined in any special way. It is surely time that civil society – the charitable sector – is defined as separate from the business and individual taxed community and that we establish a set of income and expenditure statements from government that shows clearly how well or badly we are doing in that sector – at least in money terms. This would then clearly show how well or badly governments are also doing.

At the time when the Natural Capital Committee under the newly appointed Dieter Helm is calling for an accounting for natural resources / natural capital, it is time for the charitable sector to be similarly “valued”.

Impact Valuations – What does this mean?

On a basic level, an understanding of the tax taken from the sector (mainly through VAT, plus income tax and national insurance – both company and individual – paid to staff) should be provided annually at least by Government – maybe the office for National Statistics. That can be set against the tax benefits that may arise through gift-aid benefits for those who provide funds to charities. At the very least, an Annual Report should be made by Government (almost a CSR report) but verified and commented on by Charities Commission and maybe more independently-minded organisations). This would be completely different to the current Charities Commission Annual Report – which is a micro-analysis of how it spends its £29.4m. The report has to be a macro-economic one.

Stage two would be an analysis of the sector’s public “goods” – a value of the huge and positive impact that charities have in the UK and internationally. This will be its “Impact” at a macro-economic level.

If natural assets can be “valued” (providing an accounting value as Dieter Helm wants), then so can charitable activities. This is being demanded by many funders before (certainly trusts and foundations) before they fund charities, while individual givers often want to know more about an individual charity beyond the “gut-feel” instinct that propels them to give.

This macro-economic valuing would give the charity sector an independence. It would mean that civil society could begin to understand just what contribution the charitable sector provides in terms that begin to be understandable.  Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, would have a far more meaningful brief. Currently, he sits in the Cabinet Office (under Francis Maude) – but, the brief is very wide and less economically focused than it should be. The key, of course, is how we go beyond pure economic modeling (our GDP of quantity not quality) to measure the benefits we receive from natural capital / assets (which the NCC is set up to assist with) and from civil society itself.

Just as the value of education is not the money that the government spends on education per head (based on the Academy where I am Chair, £9.35m of income is spent on 1450 students – a “value” of £6,448 per annum – although at least this has some calculative affect. Even here, of course, the cost is reduced by the government’s take of income tax from staff, National insurance from staff and schools), so the value of charities should be assessed and the (often adverse, sometimes positive) impact of government intervention should be made known.

This is not a simple task, but a critical one. As we enter a world of real austerity (especially in Europe), we are underestimating the cost of cost savings on society – at best, we ignore them.

We are well into the 21st Century – time we thought in 21st Century terms and valued those things that materially contribute. The NCC may be making a start with natural capital: it is a good time to start making real progress on valuing the macro-economic benefits of our charitable sector – before it is too late.