No Accounting for the End of the World?

Jacob Soll’s book “The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Making and Breaking of Nations” makes a good case for economic progress being firmly based on the ability to account for that progress. Although he does not show direction of travel (or cause to effect) with certainty, there is a common sense from his historical analysis from ancient Greece to more recent times in the theory that progress is based partly on an ability to undertake double-entry book keeping. This measures progress but also provides the degree of transparency that ensures “buy-in” from society.

 

This may not be a riveting “eureka” moment for many and Soll’s dallying with more metaphysical comparisons about the debits and credits of a good life being reflected by the righteous in the way that good businesses and people (like Josiah Wedgewood of pottery fame who not just promoted cost accounting but used the principle of accounting to balance their sins and good deeds) do their accounting is somewhat stretched. However, there seems ample evidence that at both a corporate / organisational and national level, economic progress is assisted greatly by the ability to count your profits and losses – to show how progress is being made.

 

Soll refers to corruption in the past that resulted from both poorly kept accounts (at corporate and national levels) and those clever enough to hoodwink auditors and investors through manipulation of accounts.

 

From the analysis, it is clear that investors need good data to make informed decisions and that citizens need to know how governments spend their money – not just for the sake of transparency but to provide worthwhile and useable information. In the majority of developed nations, corporate accounting is subject to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) or equivalent; in other countries there is a wide disparity of accounting standards or a lack of them – in Afghanistan, it will hardly be a surprise that there is no accepted principle of accounting and very few qualified accountants from there.

 

Despite the developed world’s professional standards, this does not prevent disasters on the scale of the 2007-8 banking crisis or Enron or a host of other “accounting” failures. Often, auditors don’t see the problems and may even see them and do nothing.

 

On a national basis, the same is true. While it is hard to judge the efficacy of national accounts (which are the subject to revision for many years), it is hard to believe that any country which does not work hard to make its national accounts transparent is one where real economic progress is being made or where opacity is not hiding something sinister.

Back in 2010, Global Witness highlighted this in its report “Oil Revenues in Angola” which documented the problems that Sonangol (Angola’s state oil and energy company which was then considering a public stock listing) had in reporting its revenues. That report, one of the few independent reports in a sector that is riven with corruption, argued for greater transparency, improved systems and independent auditing to the highest standards for an organization through which Angola’s wealth derives. Soll would argue that its secrecy and lack of transparency and independent auditing shows all the hallmarks of a corrupt society. But, pressure on Sonangol to provide more and better information (better accounting) is a key approach.

Numerous, other examples exist in many countries – many where natural resources exist that should benefit the population but where the “resource curse” is made possible by lack of proper accounting to high standards, properly audited and verified.

Similarly, the Dodd-Frank Act in the USA opened up country-by-country reporting to reveal how much revenue was entering such countries. The USA (and hopefully with the EU to follow) are attempting to go around the opacity of nations (and their lack of accounting capability) to find the real accounting data through those that have that ability and are subject to our own norms of accounting – the major energy companies. In this way, good accounting may be accessible by the back door to show citizens of the affected nations just how their Governments provide for them (or don’t).

 

A recent example of this is shown by an analysis made by Richard Murphy (the progenitor of country by country reporting) on recent data issued by Barclays Bank. It shows, through analysis of that data, how Barclays shields its profits from the UK Exchequor.

 

 

 

 

Value accounting – can we properly Account for Natural Resources?

 

One of the latest “opportunities” for accountants is accounting for natural resources – our natural capital. It is believed that if we make up a balance sheet of all our assets (and liabilities) then we will better know by valuing them what impact we are making on them. We naturally sympathize with a society that is striving to understand its failings and what to do about them. There is no question that if it was possible for governments (nationally and internationally) to properly assess value in our natural capital, then we could (somehow) impose some sort of value adjustment to problems caused by companies and governments when doing the things they do that adversely impact our natural capital or trade-off costs and benefits and make better decisions.

 

There is a natural and realistic desire in some governments to properly account for their natural capital. For example, The Scottish Forum on Natural Capital aims to focus on its natural capital and

 

“To deliver on its goals, the Scottish Forum will:

  1. Calculate the monetary value of Scotland’s natural capital and the cost of depleting it. This will involve coordinating experts including accountants, people from business, academics and policymakers.
  2. Communicate to a broad range of businesses and other stakeholders the risk of depleting Scotland’s natural capital and the huge economic value from protecting and enhancing it.
  3. Set up collaborative projects to deliver tangible action to protect and enhance Scotland’s natural capital.”

 

 

The calculation of that value and the link between that and effective action are major challenges. This is because the pricing mechanism for such resources does not exist. Accounting is based on the ability to reach a value determination on goods and services. It is not always right but much of double entry book-keeping methodology is based on market prices – the prices actually paid for goods and services. Market prices provide information on those goods and services that allows a profit and loss account and balance sheet to be derived.

 

Now, even existing and well understood basic accounting is often flawed or wide open to judgement. An example from the recent past: in the days of high inflation, companies (that anyway provide accounts that are usually out of date by the time a user receives them) were encouraged to undertake inflation-based accounting in addition to actual costs. Oil companies still provide two sets of accounts (one takes the data back to the latest oil prices). Which is correct? Neither (although only actual costs are used by taxation authorities)– but, they may be aids to better informed decisions.

 

Accounts are always an approximation of reality. So, for example, accounts show labour costs (the costs of people who work in a business or organization) as costs. Yet, of course, people are only recruited to add value. Unfortunately, there is no balance sheet valuation of the benefits that they can provide. Back in the 1970’s, it was fashionable to consider whether people should have a value assigned to them on the Balance Sheet (much like footballers used to be valued on the Balance Sheets of football clubs). This proposition lasted only a short time and people are not valued on a balance sheet – except in those companies with traded shares where “goodwill” (the difference between the stock value of the company and its balance sheet value) contains an undefinable figure for people. Google’s share price (usually viewed as a multiple of earnings – its P/E which is currently around 30) takes account of its extraordinary people talent – but, in a way that the market is willing to trade – a form of market pricing.

 

When the accounting mechanism is brought to natural capital, it is much harder to “account” for it – there are limited pricing mechanisms.

 

At a micro-level, companies can provide information on where their natural risk lies (e.g. how they source materials upon which they survive, where the risks are and what they are doing about it) but some of this is pricing, much of it is risk analysis. From the latter (just like any risk analysis) actions can be taken to minimize risks and maximize opportunities.

 

Companies also produce “externalities” – they impact the environment, for example, through CO2 emissions, use and abuse transportation systems, can destroy environments. So, clean-up costs need to be established when developing projects along with the minimization of health hazards and environmental degredation. Governments in many countries can work with businesses to save the environment and recast it. In the developing world, this is harder. Many instances occur whereby companies ravish areas of natural beauty and poison locations with the side effects of their production processes and do not pay the consequences. This is often a corrupt bargain but becomes the norm where natural resource extraction and its “value” overcomes the perceived value given to those dependent for their lives and health on the land: from China to DRC, from mining to forestry.

 

The key problem is linking the micro activities to the macro (governmental) responsibility for the environment. The notion of valuation at least focuses the mind. The question is whether valuing natural capital (and the wide range of – usually erroneous – assumptions that have to be made in a non-market priced environment) is useful and whether such valuations can be used to make decisions – even whether there is a use for such decisions on a quantity basis at all. For decisions based solely on price (where all the risks are not taken into account) will be wrong except where there is a market-based pricing formula available (and, of course, perfect pricing relies on perfect information on both sides – which never occurs). We can “see” how Barclays used low tax jurisdictions (see the TJN report referred to above) to shield profits and decisions can, in future, be made as a result. Valuations of natural capital are far more tenuous.

 

The drive to valuing our “natural capital” in business jargon (through pricing) is centering our attention on this critical area. However, at this early stage of natural capital ideas development (although not at an early stage in the degradation of the planet) we should be understanding what we want out of it.

 

What if all the alligators in the world were to be destroyed because enough people were willing to pay the price for alligator skin handbags and shoes? Would this be acceptable because we “paid the price”? Clearly not as the value of preserving such an animal is not easily factored into the price – who assesses it and who sets it when the “value”of having alligators is unpriceable. That is why ivory sales are (in the main) banned. There is no price allowed in the system for the elimination of elephants from our natural environment – we have made a collective decision to try to stop it rather than pricing it.

 

This suggests that the “value” placed on part of our “natural capital” is not quantifiable in business terms – even if the costs of certain degradations (and “externalities”) are.

 

Not only do we need to ask the right questions, we have to start with the answers we want or the history of Easter Island is just repeated on a massive scale.

 

There is a place for good accounting – and good accounting should know its place.

 

The Affluent Society and Social Balance

Public goods and market products – and what else?

John Kenneth Galbraith in “The Affluent Society” wrote how the obsession with production was getting out of hand and that there had to be a rebalancing between social goods and products. The absence of this balancing would be seen by ever growing debt burdens as individuals chased products which provided ever diminishing value to them. At the same time, social goods – such as education, street lighting, rubbish collection – would suffer because the focus was always on products. Debt burdens would end only with economic depression – before rising again as the economy improved.

“The Affluent Society” was written in 1958 and revised in 1973. Forty years’ later, much of the book reads as if it was written today – or, at least the analysis section of the book. Galbraith’s analysis was right as far as it went, but the prescriptions for change were never likely to be implemented.

Galbraith’s focus was on products and how our wealth was fixated on production – production that the “market” determined was needed. As wealth grew, so the market for goods is increasingly the subject of corporate advertising in order to promote goods that we may not need – but believe we do.

Public goods – such as education and anything produced by the public sector – was deemed wasteful and could never compete with corporate advertising. So, taxation (whether national or local) was harmful in most eyes as it deprived the payer of marketed products and was spent on ill-conceived public goods (such as education, waste collection and keeping the streets clean – or, worse, providing a baseline of income for those most in need). Other than defence spending, which Galbraith believes is wasted, he contends that a “social balance” is needed between the market for products and social goods.

He also saw the problems caused at the intersection of public sector and the market – two estranged bedfellows who often wake to find themselves in the same bed but unable to understand why or how to cope.

A good example of this was recently seen in London’s Heathrow Airport where lines / queues at customs on entry were up to 3 hours. Businesses impacted by such horrors in the year of the Queen’s Jubilee and the 2012 Olympics were outraged at the inefficiency of Government – who control customs. Heathrow is a business – a travel and shopping centre. It is also the key entry point for people from across the world and Government is responsible for who enters the country. This intersection of the two clearly shows the difficulty of creating the “social balance” between government and the market.

Galbraith’s Missing Elements

Forty years ago, four, major elements were missing from or only sidelines in Galbraith’s analysis – issues which have become more central over time:

Global trading – or the Global Social Balance

The errors in GDP accounting – quantity vs quality

The Environment

Civil Society

Global Social Balance

The world is a different one from 1958 or even 1973. We trade globally and the developed nations increasingly use labour from the undeveloped nations to do low-cost, manual work (often in conditions we would not tolerate in our own countries). It is a 19th Century state of work but internationalised– where now, international companies tend to operate as the mill owners of old.

From a micro-economic sense that is understandable – each company is different and many act responsibly. However, from a macro-economic viewpoint and from an international political viewpoint, there are limited mechanics for equalizing health and safety laws let alone education and pay scales.

Galbraith’s concern was that we produced too much and that we should be able to make less in a country like the USA. When the work goes international, the responses to the problem have to as well.

Production by numbers: quantity versus quality

In an affluent society, production is made the cornerstone of all we do (the economy is central to all our decisions) because work is needed to secure income. Even in an affluent society, income at a certain level is deemed to be critical. Products of progressively less use (or utility) are sold (often solely on the back of advertising) and we buy them and this is meant to keep us in work and more buying goes on.

Of course, in an international labour market, that won’t always work (as Gandhi found out in the early 20th Century when England produced most of the cotton garments sold in India) and it has become harder to focus just on one country.

However, the global economy does not mean that products become more useful – much of what we make is simply wasting energy and resources. However, it is keeping people in work in many developing nations.

But, growth is measured by GDP and GDP is a poor measure of quality of life or even production. Quality of education, for example, is measured in GDP by its cost (an input) not an output. A £500 handbag is deemed worth the same as £500 worth of essential foods – no difference in utility is assessed.

The felling of a rare tree is “valued” at the cost of felling or its price in the market as a table. The value of a river is missed completely – unless over-polluted when its clear-up costs may enter as a cost in a nation’s GDP.

It is production by numbers, quantity versus quality.

Environmental Balance

While mentioning the issue of environment, the main topic of “The Affluent Society” is the social balance between public goods and market production. All these are made by people – so, the environment in which we live is ignored. The trade-off is not, of course, that simple (even though the Galbraith trade-off has never been seen to function). The environmental trade-off (our need to maintain our natural capital) is now being understood but remains relatively hidden in economic debates. Natural capital needs to be brought into any debate on affluence in society – our quality of life as opposed to the quantity of life.

Civil Society

To Galbraith, the game is between the market and the public sector and to most, this battle still exists as the only one. There was not much mention of civil society – where most of us spend most of our time – except through discussion of leisure time. Here, the trade-off was between productive working and spare time. I expect that this assumes that all non-productive time is spent on hobbies or watching TV.

The creativity and value of civil society – a huge array of organisations from sports to international development, from charities to women’s institutes – is normally missed completely by economists and thinkers on society. The problem is that it does not fit easily into econometricians’ computer simulations: more of the “if you can’t count it, it doesn’t exist” syndrome.

Of course, for centuries, people have been undertaking “good deeds” – the history of the 19th Century is full of examples of charitable activities. However, society is changing fast and as politics loses its appeal for so many (with parties genuinely fearing for their future), the role of civil society is growing and, in affluent societies, taking back more from the state that it lost to the state in the 20th Century.

This escape from the centre is to be applauded, but needs to be better understood.

Social Balance

Complete reliance on the market or on the centre (libertarianism or communism) may still appeal to some. The reality is that complexity is the norm. Society is a mixture of competing ideas and competing structures – out of which we muddle through and where individuals take centre stage and form organisations to make their voice louder.

Nevertheless, we should learn from history and our mistakes. Centrism is a doctrine of the defeated; totalitarianism a doctrine of the damned. There is no one answer but a constant mix of opportunities that society provides and where changes are constant in the way we answer our problems.

The mix of competing answers does no longer rest between public and private sector in an affluent society – that is a 20th Century doctrine or response. The response now has to take into account the social balance we want from our lives between products, social value, natural capital and civil society relationships in a global context not a rigidly national one.

This means being adult about the causes of change and grown-up about the challenges – it means being international in approach and understanding the complexity of the problem – not something that can be understood wholly by quantities or computer simulations.

As we grow materially (i.e. through the quantity of products we are able to manufacture) and bump up against the troubles of environmental degradation and massive disparities of wealth and conditions (on a global scale), the question to be addressed is how does a complex society best form itself to take the decisions it needs to maximize the value we all give and receive from this “affluent society”.

 

Under-valuing Civil Society – Wherever the Market and Government don’t work

What, in the 21st Century, is it the role of charity?  Where does civil society (the real society) fit in a world dominated by the market and the state?

Recently I became Chief Executive of Willow Foundation (www.willowfoundation.org.uk) – a Charity in the UK that works to help 16-40 year-olds who are suffering from life threatening illnesses. We do this by providing psychological and emotional benefits through the provision of “Special Days” – something exceptional that we organize and make work  for them and their close ones. Our research shows that this is important for all – whether in curative or palliative phases of their illness.

So, my question above is heartfelt as well as intellectual.

Well, the simple and well-known answer is that where the marketplace has no response to society’s need and today’s government (focused on financing an NHS as the biggest employer and where they are just getting round to looking after elderly patients with care) is not entrusted (or does not feel entrusted) with this task, then charities and civil society intervene. That response encompasses both interventions such as Willow employs all the way to campaigners for new rights (here and overseas).

Charities?

In 2010, Sir Stephen Bubb, CEO of ACEVO in his paper titled: “Rediscovering Charity: Defining our role within the State” focused on the role of charities from their origins to the present day through their varying links to Government.  Whether funded by government (the state) or philanthropists, the link with the state was crucial from early times when the state was there just to extract taxes and fight wars to now (when it seems to be much of the same!) where the state sets the minimum standards of involvement.

The state also sets the laws under which charities operate (partly to defend its citizens from rogue elements) and pays a considerable amount of its taxation to charities. My recent blog on this: Do we value the Charity Sector? (https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/do-we-value-the-charitable-sector/)

was a statement of concern that the state completely fails to lay out the economic benefits and costs of the sector.

But, it is not only in regard to the state (or government) that charities must be seen. Charities exist in the 21st Century in the USA, UK and other, wealthier countries because neither government nor the “market” meets all our needs – even if they are better met than five hundred years ago. The “Third Sector” exists where the main economic system actors fail and where the need is financeable and / or manageable by volunteers and / or better managed by this sector.

Charities (or civil society organisations) range very widely. With newer forms of company (like social enterprises, community interest companies), the blurring is intensified, but the relationship of many forms of non-government, non-traditional market organisations are continuously reforming and developing.

Also changing is the gap that is to be filled as a result of government and / or the marketplace “failure”.

Maslow described in 1934 our “hierarchy of needs” which changes as we become wealthier. From charities operating to provide food and shelter (critical in much of Africa now and the UK in the 19th Century and before), as economies grow, the gaps become different. As income grows, the market may wake up to provide the need; government raises taxation and develops new ways to disburse that income where voters shout for that need to be filled.

Charities and the economy

In 2010, Charities had an income of £36.7 billion – about the same size as Aviva’s revenue – the UK’s biggest insurance company. The UK economy’s GDP in 2011 was around £1.5 trillion – so, the Charity sector is about 2.5% of the UK’s GDP as measured in simple economic terms (comparing income to GDP).

Financially, the raw economic facts do not speak for themselves. Economic statistics are based on what is measured and it is assumed that £1 is £1 is £1. Measurement in our economy is flawed – real value is mistaken, of course, when our decisions are made almost entirely on the basis of cost data.

The impact of the charity sector, then, is much greater than the raw data. This is reflected in the media and elsewhere but because the third sector is not so easily measureable – charities don’t have financial bottom lines – it is too easy to ignore it or treat it like a small child to be patted on the head when it does well and scolded if it doesn’t.

How important is the Third sector / civil society?

If it is not practical to value civil society or that piece of society that is not government or the market (although it interfaces with both), then how can the real value of this sector be valued? If we are now working to value our natural resources, the value of the charity sector (or whatever we call it) has to be made so that decisions are not taken purely on the basis of costs.

The stupid action of the Treasury in proposing to set an upper limit of £50,000 or 25% of income for tax deductions on charitable donations is so crass as to be almost unbelievable! It is the sign (if we needed it) that valuation is not the issue. Apart from the fact that the Treasury cannot even provide decent examples of the complex schemes that they are trying to hit (sledge hammers cracking nuts), it completely under-values the Charity giving sector and the value that is created from these donations.

This is happening throughout our austerity-driven society. In the same way that pollution effects of manufacturing in the 19th and 20th Centuries (from pesticides to greenhouse gasses) were not properly valued (and are still not properly), so charity is completely undervalued by those responsible for taking decisions that have enormous and adverse impacts.

The value created by a volunteer does not show up in statistics. The value created by pro-bono help from companies and lawyers and school governors and countless others is not shown. The reduced cost of staff in the sector compared to other sectors (notwithstanding the argument about managerialism which is another important subject) is shown as much lower and demands far lower “income” to fund it. Discounts from companies, gifts in kind – all appear to reduce the economic benefit of the sector because they show up as lower costs. But, they provide huge value, which is seriously under-reported. The Big Society is much bigger than the raw data shows.

Yet, decisions are still made based on 19th Century statistics and 19th Century economics.

If we value society as a mix between the market, government and the third sector – with individuals as the customers of all three – then we have to be much smarter and less lazy in understanding what real value comes to mean and much less lazy in using out of date models to make decisions.

The Charity (or third) sector / civil society has a huge and under-estimated impact on society – far greater than the 2.5% of GDP or its equivalent to other sectors of society – which (apart from various externalities) are better approximated by GDP statistics. It is not just the market and the state which makes up society – although we are brainwashed to believe it it.

In the past, before we became beholden to numbers as the only arbiter in society, charity was understood for the huge part it played. As we have become wealthier, rightly government and the market have taken positions, which in the past were covered by charities. Charities and civil society in its widest sense have moved into new areas as the demand became clear. Now, we need to understand the impact of the sector in macroeconomic terms (across the huge range of “charitable activities”) – not just its GDP – in order to properly make decisions.

Osborne’s recent numbskullery with the £50,000 limit has not done much to Cameron’s happiness index nor his leader’s desire to establish the Big Society, has it?

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.