The right type of Big Society

David Cameron said he was “very relaxed” about offering the children of his friends internships to work in his office. Here was an insight into how the PM views the Big Society: acts of neighbourliness; helping out friends; fostering strong social bonds.

He remembers his childhood in the shires, when everybody knew everybody in the village, and hopes – admirably – that others can enjoy and benefit from the friendliness and real sense of community he enjoyed.

But the encouragement of this type of bonding could undermine the other central government aim of increasing social mobility. Giving already advantaged young people – as a favour to their parents – easy access to impressive, massively CV-enhancing work experience is a case in point. If they don’t think this through, the Government’s Big Society agenda could entrench social privilege.

Strong communities have numerous private benefits: a source of well-being, a safety net in challenging circumstances, and security from rent-seeking activity which protects people from being ripped off. But, if we are left with a patchwork of tightly-knitted, homogenous “little platoons”, this could be problematic.

The king of social capital theory, Professor Robert Putnam, claims there are two types of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding happens when people of with similar characteristics – age, ethnicity, gender or social class – come together. Bridging happens when people with different characteristics come together: rich and poor, or immigrant and indigenous populations.

The problem with the Tories is that they haven’t defined what their Big Society looks like, instead deliberately leaving it vague. First, for political reasons – to appeal to both small-state slashers and fluffy liberals. But also to initiate discussion in hope of finding answers on how to tackle the atomisation, exclusion and disadvantage which still scars our society.

People, predictably, have interpreted the Big Society as getting involved in their community more: helping out at the local school, joining the W.I., organising a street party.

All nice. But those from more affluent backgrounds are in a stronger position to engage in civic activities. This is because, as research from Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals, the obstacles to engagement – crime, shame, fear, violence – are much more pronounced in more deprived neighbourhoods. Since civic participation means cutting into potential or actual working time, people on lower incomes have to contend with a sharper opportunity cost. Indeed, the government-commissioned Cantle report found that community cohesion was unlikely in areas with high levels of poverty.

So we are likely to get a lot of Putnam’s bonding social capital among more affluent groups, singing along to Dave’s Big Society tune. Or we will get professional do-gooders who commendably, but most probably sporadically, support those facing disadvantage.

Bonding, as the Social Market Foundation illustrated in its recent report Bridging differences, has problems. It leads to those within the group having privileged access to crucial information, support and resources. The effect is to unintentionally exclude others from accessing these. For example, how to get the best internships or jobs. How to get the best deals on goods. How to access high-quality services. If people from more affluent backgrounds, who are much more likely to bond, access these privileges, those from deprived backgrounds face opportunity and financial disadvantages. Ultimately, this leads to weaker social mobility.

Stronger bonding also has economic and social disadvantages. It can cause inertia, less innovation and lower productivity, since the effort, talents and perspective of a wider group of people from different backgrounds is not utilised. Prejudice towards other social groups may also arise.

The best way to resolve these problems is to encourage bridging social capital, where people from different backgrounds come together. Luckily, Danish research suggests that those with higher bonding social capital, are more likely to engage in bridging social capital. But, for this to happen, what is needed is bridging points: civic institutions that nurture social mixing. Think Sure Start Children’s Centres, schools, universities.

Unfortunately, some Coalition policies could undermine socially diverse public institutions. Many Sure Start centres are closing as the Government reduces funding to local authorities. Free schools have the potential to cream off children from more affluent backgrounds. Elite universities are now being incentivised to recruit more students with AAB grades at A-level – and these students are disproportionately more likely to come from affluent homes. Voluntary organisations – who run projects that bring people together – are scaling down as the public funding they rely on is cut.

The Big Society, if is to be a progressive agenda, needs strong civic institutions which bring people from different backgrounds together. Such existing institutions, therefore, should be better protected, especially from public funding cuts. And creative policies need to be developed which encourage social mixing in public intuitions: the pupil premium for schools to take on poorer students is a good start. Only then will the Big Society help everyone, not just those already privileged.

Ryan Shorthouse is Spokesman for Bright Blue and a researcher at the Social Market Foundation

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye - Breaking views from commentators -

• The Growth Agenda
• Blairite and Brownite coalition re-forged
• Poll: Labour gain as Tories suffer from euro crisis
• Poll alert
• "You are dumb"