Thoughts on Cameron’s Big Society

The inefficient provision of government services…out of control government spending…up to our ears in debt…

In the UK and the US alike, politicians and pundits flood the airwaves with these catchphrases. Indeed, the idea that government is overreaching and needs to be reined in has come to dominate the political debate on both sides of the pond.

While these political outcries do share some similarities, the differences in government response in the US and the UK have also been noteworthy. The UK’s commitment to austerity marks the greatest difference between the two. While we hear many in the US impugn government spending, we rarely hear about the need to raise taxes in order to reduce the government deficit.

Anything resembling the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” initiative is also absent from the American political landscape. To date, there exists no comprehensive, positive program that reflects the vision of personal responsibility, community activism, and small government comparable to the Big Society in the United States. This absence is striking, especially when we consider that the ideals of the Big Society are thought to be in America’s DNA—the idea of harnessing local spirit and championing the individual, the belief that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps without the aid of the government.

That said, there are obvious parallels between the populist Tea Party movement in the US and the Big Society initiative in the UK. The two share a faith in individual industry and the power of the market; both also reject the idea that big government and big debt can ever maximize a nation’s welfare. Some have even gone so far as to label David Cameron a “Tea Party Tory.”

After listening to Tea Party rhetoric for more than a moment, however, it becomes obvious that the movement is reactionary at its core—in a way that the Big Society is not. The Tea Party is allergic to all forms of taxation, all government-run services, all government regulation. This difference of rhetoric is largely a function of the fact that the Tea Party movement is grassroots rather than directed from the top-down. Whatever the underlying reason for this difference, however, the Big Society is clearly a more positive vision for something, rather than merely a critique against something.

Indeed, many of the criticisms leveled against the Big Society concern the coherence of its positive vision. The coalition’s concern over the UK’s yawning debt—which has resulted in the implementation of austerity measures—is in tension with its vision for increased community activism—which requires precisely the funding that is currently being slashed.  Many charities and volunteer organizations have kicked up a dust storm of press coverage on this issue. They claim that without government funding, they will have no operating budget and will be forced to close. Libraries in particular have been in dire straits. Over 400 libraries are threatened with closure, and this figure could rise to 800 by the end of the year. Ironically, then, it is the UK’s big society itself that is mounting the strongest challenge to the Big Society initiative.

Put simply, Cameron is straddling two contradictory goals: first, cuts to volunteer groups and, second, a Big Society that depends on the effectiveness of those very same groups.  This tension has led some to accuse Cameron of using the Big Society as a proverbial fig leaf for government spending cuts.

An objection to the Big Society which, if true, threatens to cut out the core of the initiative is one of practicality.  Many argue that the Big Society’s demand on private citizens to volunteer their time and money for the provision of front line services is a fantasy. We would do well to remember what James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers: if men were angels, no government would be necessary. While treating men like selfish devils would undoubtedly have negative consequences as well, treating men like selfless angels would also have such consequences: in this case, devastation to government services. If, as it turns out, men are not angels, then the UK will have landed itself in a situation involving a slew of spending cuts combined with inadequate levels of volunteering. Indeed, the evidence seems to point to this worry becoming a reality. Academics at the University of Bristol and the Cass Business School have found that charity donations as a percentage of income have remained largely unchanged in the past 30 years, despite the expansion of tax breaks to donors and the professionalization of charity fundraising.

While devolving power to local communities does have obvious benefits—i.e. decisions are more likely to be tailored to individual communities—the UK runs a risk by allowing individual communities to make autonomous decisions. Among these risks are that decisions may be overly short-sighted and that, if all local decisions are made with an eye to their own constituency, the aggregation of all these micro-decisions could lead to an incoherent macro-level policy. For instance, if the UK is in need of housing but no individual town wants to undertake such construction projects, then the housing crisis will not be resolved. At times such as these, a disinterested national government is necessary. Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, the devolution of power to local communities may lead to the disadvantaged in society, those least likely to speak up in local consultation, being overlooked. Without a federal government to look after the voiceless, it abdicates its responsibility to these citizens.

Amid the barrage of complaints lodged against the Big Society, it is easy to forget the spirit of the initiative: encouraging personal responsibility and community activism.  These are noble pursuits and surely ones that members of all political parties can rally around. After all, many believe that participation in government is the bedrock of a democracy.

Also responding to the critics, supporters of the initiative argue that the success of the Big Society cannot solely by measured by government allocation. Indeed, it is possible for local projects to flourish during times of overall cuts in government spending.

Perhaps the Big Society initiative can be salvaged, and its inconsistencies resolved, by retaining visions for government from the right and the left. David Cameron’s Big Society and big government do not necessarily have to be in competition. Rather than supplanting the federal government, increased autonomy for local government and the federal government can and should be mutually reinforcing.