Community ownership – watch this space
Author: Tom Shakespeare, eGov Monitor |
Recent thinking on co-operatives is about continued public service improvements, and a failure of the state – not just a rejection of ‘casino capitalism’. But there are still many challenges to overcome.
For both Labour and the Conservatives, co-operatives and mutual societies have become the next logical step for public service reform. David Cameron has pledged his commitment to give public sector workers in the NHS and education a stake in the success of those organisations, and in local government, Lambeth have been branded as the ‘John Lewis’ Council for their commitment to co-operatives in the delivery of local public services.
It would be fair to say that the concept of co-operatives in the delivery of public services is relatively new to recent Conservative party thinking. But for the Labour party, the interest in co-operatives has a long history.
But why the sudden re-ignition of interest now?
For the Conservative party, the interest in co-operatives is partly about the need to move away from the large monopolising state, to one where local people have a stronger voice and take an active interest in public services. This is the ‘big society’ that Cameron describes. But it is also partly a recognition that there is a limit to the private sector competition paradigm which Thatcher started, and Blair and Brown have continued to this day.
The limits of the current Labour government’s approach to public service reform are also becoming increasingly clear. Public service improvements have stagnated, and despite massive increases in much needed public funding; productivity has reduced. The vast swathes of targets and performance indicators have also outlived their shelf lives, with distortions, bureaucracy and waste rife across the public sector.
In our recent report ‘For Good Measure’, we discussed alternative approaches to performance improvement, using access to information as the catalyst for a reform of accountability of local public services, and as a way of driving public interest in how public services are run.
Many people from the Left would argue that the new-found interest in co-operatives is as a rejection of what many have called ‘casino-capitalism’. But I think this understates the point. The centralising, monopolising and bureaucratising tendencies of the state have undermined the connections between people and with government. The state has treated citizens as homogenous consumers of public services, and failed to recognise the complexity and interdependence of people’s needs. This is not just about the failure of competition – it is about a failure of the state too.
Despite the origins of the co-operative movement from the left of the political spectrum, it seems as though the initiative may have been seized by the right, with Labour desperate to jump back onto the band-wagon they once started. At this stage, the consensus is refreshing, but there is still a long way to go to make this vision a reality. There are several key questions which will shape this debate going forward:
Firstly, there are many different types of co-operative. Which one is most appropriate for which service, if at all? Staff ownership or local community ownership models will have different impacts, and may begin to pose questions such as: what scale should services be delivered, and can we allow variation in the delivery of public services?
Secondly, how will co-operatives drive improvements? Many argue that the John Lewis staff-ownership model has been a success because it instils a culture of work, with productivity rates at 10% higher levels than the FTSE 100. But does this work in an environment where targets and bureaucracy overpower the impact any individual can make?
Thirdly, how can the Total Place, outsourcing, performance improvement and community ownership plans be reconciled? There are also questions about how the benefits of early intervention and cross-organisational collaboration can be felt and encouraged.
Fourthly, where does democratic control lie in community ownership of public services, especially around resource competition and lack of democratic legitimacy of non-representative groups. There is also a question about the most appropriate scale for this legitimacy
Finally, and most significantly – how do you engage and persuade the public about this new approach? Generating demand for setting up social enterprises is likely to cost money, and there is a lack of public understanding about the value of doing so. Many people still see it as the state’s role to provide education, clean the streets and provide care for the elderly for example.
In short, the challenges are many. But there is no shortage of ideas either. The challenge is to reconcile the complex array of ideas and problems to a coherent vision for the future of the state and the delivery of public services. Working through this fog of complexity will require strong leadership and a willing to see through a vision. It might be that there are pragmatic and feasible ways to move forward with the concept of co-operatives in public services – the personalisation agenda seems like a good place to start for example. Partnership, co-production and transparency could ultimately lead the way towards a new kind of state – and ultimately to better outcomes as a result.
What is clear is that the current approach is not delivering the results that are required of it. Given the need for public spending cuts of up to 20% in some parts of the public sector – this problem is only going to become even more acute.
Co-operatives are heralded as the panacea for public service reform. Just as the early stages of the Thatcher era heralded the way for the dominant paradigm of competition as the driver of improvement, it seems as though co-operatives, mutual ownership and localism are the dominant forces for the future.
In terms of where next – watch this space!