Caroline MacFarland addresses the oversights of the Big Society in not laying out the fundamental means to harness and encourage social group activity. This is vital as clubs and social groups cultivate social capital, wellbeing, and counter social ills such as loneliness and anti-social behaviour

MacFarland, Caroline

English

LSE Research Online

blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/po liticsandpolicy/archives/25175We need to ensure that group behaviours are taken intoaccount across policy initiativesCaroline MacFarland addresses the oversights of the Big Society in not laying out thefundamental means to harness and encourage social group activity. This is vital as clubs andsocial groups cultivate social capital, wellbeing, and counter social ills such as loneliness andanti-social behaviour.I recently attended the launch of  a report by our colleagues at Theos, in partnership withthe recently launched Sports think tank. The report addressed the role of  sport in societyand asserted that claims of  its social, polit ical, moral and economic benef its are over-inf lated. Rather than getting swept away with the Olympics hype, sport, our theologian f riends argue,should be appraised f or its intrinsic good: “sport f or sports sake”.ResPublica also published a report last week, on a parallel topic analysing the social and public benef it ofparticipation in broader social clubs and group activity. As a co-author of  the report I sympathise with thedilemma f aced in trying to analyse something inherently and primarily ‘social’. There is lit t le hard evidenceout there of  the added value of  inf ormal group activity. Much of  the participation in question takes place‘under the radar ’ and is not easy to capture, and the majority of  work on the topic is based on anecdotalaccounts.But this is not to say that there are no lessons to be learned f or policy-makers. Whilst it may beunnecessary and even undesirable f or policy makers to actively intervene in social activity, there arecertainly ways in which they could encourage and f acilitate a climate conducive to group interaction andthe social capital stemming f rom it.As Prof  Lord Layard wrote in a letter to the FT last month, the government has f ocused enormousef f orts on inf rastructure spending and economic growth but has lef t social capital and the ideals of  the‘Big Society’ by the wayside. Recognising and learning f rom the wealth of  social good which alreadyexists but is of ten seen to be ‘outside the realms’ of  normal policy-making is a good start to addressingthis civic and social def icit.In the ResPublica report, Clubbing Together: The Hidden Wealth of Communities, we address theoversights of  the Big Society in not laying out the f undamental means to harness and encourage socialgroup activity. In an age of  declining trust in tradit ional institutions – religion, the media, f inancialinstitutions, government – Government should not seek to create a ‘Big Society’ f rom scratch, but shouldlook instead to prevailing and successf ul civil society models.Clubs and membership organisations are exemplary of  how people are motivated to gather and spendtheir t ime, and indicate how some activit ies take precedence over others in our everyday social lives. Thisis important f or policy makers considering incentives f or recruitment of  volunteers, and meetingphilanthropy targets f or example.Clubs and social groups cult ivate social capital, wellbeing, and counter social ills such as loneliness andanti-social behaviour. An ethos of  membership of ten provokes an additional sense of  purpose whichinspires other civic activity.Recognising this social value and harnessing the potential public benef it does not require a top-downapproach. Instead, it is about ensuring that group behaviours are taken into account across policyinit iatives, and used to promote as well as inspire government interventions. Promoting neighbourhoodinteraction should not be restricted to residents, but account f or the groups and clubs where peoplecongregate locally. Town centre regeneration policies should be mindf ul of  community needs f orcongregating and interacting socially as well as commercially. Digital inclusion init iatives also, should begeared towards using online tools as a means f or f ace-to-f ace interaction.I do agree that social activit ies such as sport should be valued f or their intrinsic good – and in manycases no f urther analysis is needed. But to rule out f urther value f or society and public policy is to missan important opportunity. We don’t have to resort to ‘social engineering’ to help grassroots groupsf lourish, we just need to make sure that policy is not overly weighted towards individual incentives andbehaviours. Af ter all, society at its most basic is def ined by human interaction.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog,nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.About the authorCaroline Macfarland is Managing Director of the ResPublica Trust, the not-for-profit entity established inJuly 2011 which undertakes all of ResPublica’s domestic activity. She studied Politics and Sociology at theUniversity of York and the University of Copenhagen, where she was active in student politics. Caroline haswritten for UK and international media outlets and her interests include mutual and social enterprise, civilsociety models, and economic localism.You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. The state has a key role in providing the f ramework f or action and policies to ensure f airness onbehalf  of  all its cit izens (16.1)2. David Cameron is running a ‘ring-donut’ government with a weak centre. His f eeble grip on policycoordination suggests a f ailure of  statecraf t (8)

We need to ensure that group behaviours are taken into account across policy initiatives

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online