Commentary

A series of essays exploring the future public realm.

Unbelievable?

First posted at 18:31GMT on 24/09/08 by Hilary Cottam

We're launching our mission statement this week, we call it Beveridge 4.0. It is a brief but fundamental critique of the current condition of the UK's welfare state. At Participle, we believe as many others do, that its condition is critical. An outdated system, that cannot solve the problems we now face. A system dominated by large institutions, not the individuals who use them. Things are not going to get better. What hurts the most, is that the man widely regarded as the architect of our welfare state, William Beveridge, in the later part of his life, predicted the situation we now find ourselves in.

And, what a situation we are in. At the time of writing, last week, one of America's largest financial institutions went bust, and another was effectively nationalised. In Britain, similar events were/are unfolding. Global stocks are making record falls, oil prices are rising in unprecedented daily jumps. A financial crisis has unveiled the short falls of capitalism. In the process, capitalism and the state have had an almost unprecedented strain put on their relationship. As we experience the unease of watching apparently solid institutional foundations all too easily turn liquid, we're revisiting our faith in the state. In times of trouble, we look to the state for support, from heavy intervention to new regulations. But, for many of us, our faith in the state took a similar bashing some years ago. For Britain's growing inequality and social recession have revealed the short falls in our welfare state. Shortfalls that have not been met by introducing elements of the market, or by trying to make the state more 'personal'. What is needed we argue is a very different set of arrangements which start from a local perspective with individuals and families, building a new set of capabilities, drawing on a wider set of resources and supported by very different institutions.

Participle runs large scale projects that address the big social issues of our time, while demonstrating how a new welfare settlement might operate. Our work has made a big difference in some communities, but Participle is a small group of designers, policy analysts, social scientists and entrepreneurs based in South London. We need the help of others to inform our thinking, and doing. This document draws on our work with and for the public at the community level - it is in this broadest sense collaborative, and it will evolve collaboratively. Therefore, this document is written with an Open Source process in mind. It is just version 1. In 2009, we will launch Version 2, including all the relevant opinions, suggestions and contributions from people like you. This is the spirit of Beveridge 4.0. This document outlines a starting point, no more. Be part of this journey. We will be developing different ways to canvas involvement in Beveridge 4.0. For now, we ask you to comment on this blog. We promise to collate all comments, and where relevant develop them as themes in Version 2.

The size of the task seems daunting, but at Participle, we see the giant Capitalism evolving before us, and see no reason why a similar transformation cannot take place within the welfare state. It's not unbelievable.

Download Beveridge 4.0 here.

Show Comments (5)

Comments

wow i wish we could have some of your design thinking applied here in South Africa.

Eben
Breinstorm Brand Architects

eben, 10/11/08, 14:14GMT

I think this is a really exciting vision and I like the concrete projects you
are doing to take it forward. I have done a post on your vision on
http://www.theconnectedrepublic.org and hopefully there will be some more feedback
there. I suppose my main question is how much is this an alternative to the
welfare state and how much a vital complement to it. If the Southwark Circle
works (which I very much hope it will) it should immeasurably strengthen the
community (and in the long run save LB Southwark and the local PCTs etc lots of
money), but won’t the local authorities most direct role be agreeing that the
participation of some individuals who meet eligibility criteria in terms of
needs and income should be publically funded? So there is a recognition of the
need to build a third pillar between state and individual, but the state still
plays into this in a fairly conventional way. Similarly, I also think a mutual
or community group can talk to its members in a more personalised,
capabilities-focused way than a public organisation could precisely because its
ethos can be “what are we going to do together” rather than “can we justify
this activity to the wider community that is funding it”.

Paul Johnston, 26/11/08, 22:48GMT

It was with great, great pleasure that i read about Participle, Beveridge 4.0 and the vision for the future. It presents a vital and i believe viable approach to solving the apparently “intractable” social issues of today, one of which i am currently struggling with here in America. i would welcome dialogue with someone from your organization while I am still in the seminal stages of strategy development to see if there’s a real opportunity to import some of your ideas and models.

esantiago, 26/11/08, 23:07GMT

The root cause of many of the issues touched upon in the report is a disintegration of community and social structures more generally. The reason that the elderly feel socially excluded is because the traditional means of being socially included are being removed. Physical cornerstones of community such as post offices, banks, railways stations, social halls, corner shops, etc., that once played a role as social congregators are now disappearing. Services to provide mobility to those that have none are being reduced. The impediments to socialising stack up quickly, particularly for those for whom socialising is most important. For the young (and some elderly) new communities are being found online - but the online world is no panacea: there is no substitute for face to face contact, human companionship and the importance of physical presence. To address social services we need to not only look at the social services themselves - and their considerable failings - but also at the environment in which those services are being executed. Bottom-up , participative processes are good, of this there is no doubt, but they assume vibrant, healthy local communities that can embrace such processes.

M Shears, 3/12/08, 00:01GMT

Hi there, very interesting, i had read alot of Mr Leadbeater’s books and always impressed, very insightful. I came across you at an event in Croydon, where the Head of IYSS mentioned you in the context of LOOPs. I will definately do some more reading about you and then perhaps make contact.

best wishes

Asi Panditharatna
Catch22 (formerly Rainer Crime Concern)

Asi Panditharatna, 17/2/10, 10:09GMT