Читать книгу Hope Under Neoliberal Austerity - Группа авторов - Страница 12

3

The public sector and civil society: introduction

Mel Steer, Simin Davoudi, Liz Todd and Mark Shucksmith

There is no definitive, universally agreed definition of what social welfare is (Lowe, 1993), and in the UK, ‘social welfare’, ‘social security’ and the ‘welfare state’ are terms that are often used interchangeably to refer to the provision of a lifeline, a safety net, to help people cope during periods of disruption or crisis. While welfare provision is often associated with the post-war social-democratic states and, in Britain, the introduction of the NHS in 1945, Alcock’s (2016) historical account demonstrates that charitable forms of welfare provision existed before, for example, the Poor Law of 1601 in England, where parishes administered relief to the destitute, and measures introduced in the 19th century that applied to large sections of the population regarding access to education, hospitals and sanitation. However, social infrastructures such as schools and hospitals were typically owned by churches and voluntary organisations, or funded by private individuals, rather than the state (Alcock, 2016). This tradition of charitable and voluntary welfare provision has continued to date, leading to the involvement of multiple actors and creating diversity in terms of the manner of service delivery, staff ethos and the purpose and accountability of the organisations.

Across the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, increased prominence is given to collectively produced welfare services through co-production and collaboration. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2011) simply defines co-production in terms of a model incorporating diverse organisations operating in distinct ways and with differing levels of engagement from and involvement of civil society organisations, service users and citizens. The case studies included in Part I of this book draw on co-production in its various forms and incorporate a number of different providers, addressing issues that affect different aspects of people’s lives in interlocking ways that impact life chances and outcomes. All case-study chapters are co-written by university researchers and those working for organisations outside the university. Some of the case studies are well established and others represent relatively new initiatives or ways of working. A common thread running through the case-study practices is their aim to provide more than a lifeline through a crisis. Instead, they aim to deliver sustainable, transformative change that reshapes people’s social and community connections and lives for the better in a way that encourages social renewal and promotes social justice, recognising that ‘A more equal, cohesive society is simply a better, healthier place to live’ (Marmot et al, 2020: 149).

The first case study in Part I of the book is the chapter ‘Innovation outside the state’, which outlines how the Glendale Gateway Trust started as a locally driven initiative in Wooler, North Northumberland, in 1996. The authors describe the trust’s journey, how they navigated the challenges and tensions, and how a more favourable funding landscape at the start of the initiative enabled them to establish the trust and to ultimately acquire income-generating assets to ensure sustainability. The trust provides an example of how the community responded to perceived local needs and developed an innovative approach to capitalise on opportunities for social renewal. Although the initiative started in 1996 and benefited from successful community grant applications to create a community centre, the austerity cuts from 2010 presented a challenge to continued operation and later, ironically, opportunities. The library, tourist information centre and local police presence moved into the community centre, providing a stable income, and the trust acquired the old library building through local authority transfer and converted the building into affordable housing units.

The chapter ‘The Byker Community Trust and the “Byker Approach”’ argues that housing has been particularly badly affected by ‘roll-back neoliberalism’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002: 388) and austerity, and yet good-quality housing was central to the development of the post-war welfare state. The authors describe how Byker Community Trust (BCT) undertook the co-creation of the physical, social and environmental refurbishment of the historical and architecturally significant grade II* listed Byker Estate in Newcastle, which is situated in an area of high socio-economic deprivation. The authors describe how BCT developed the holistic ‘Byker Approach’ to give tenants a strong voice and role in decision-making in the estate’s renewal. BCT embraced a wide remit of responsibilities and worked with partners to alleviate some of the effects of health and social inequality, financial exclusion, and educational and employment disadvantage. Aiming to make Byker an ‘estate of choice’, active tenant engagement through ‘value co-creation’ (Grönroos, 2011) to enhance citizen well-being and to develop BCT to market its housing was supported by Newcastle University through a knowledge transfer partnership.

The chapter ‘Cafe society’ discusses how food sharing in a ‘pay as you feel’ community cafe in Chester-le-Street used donations of ‘safe for consumption’ surplus food to prevent waste, improve access to food and reduce social isolation. The chapter engages with social justice from the perspective of promoting an inclusive space that encourages people to value their own self-worth and contribution regardless of ability to pay as cafe customers are invited to pay with time, skills or money. Drawing on a co-produced research project between the cafe and Newcastle University that used photovoice and participatory action research methods, cafe visitors’ experiences of the cafe and their views about the cafe’s impact on visitors and community were gathered. They argue that the associations and interactions taking place in the cafe are based on reciprocity, which represents a ‘quiet activism’ inherent in cafe users’ exchanges, providing a challenge to the critique that surplus food depoliticises food waste and food poverty, as well as to capitalist modes of production and consumption.

The chapter ‘“Computer Says No”’ explores the components of fairness and justice in the design and implementation of the welfare system through online, digital services (as the UK government implemented the ‘digital by default’ initiative to access services). Based on data from a participatory action research project that was funded by UK Research and Innovation and led by a researcher from Newcastle University, the authors consider how, using a collaborative approach, people can be supported to use technology to achieve fairer outcomes. The authors demonstrate how the Parker Trust and the Pallion Action Group from Sunderland support those experiencing low income to navigate government welfare benefit services online and share their learning with other similar third sector organisations. Drawing on claimants’ experiences, they acknowledge that lack of online access creates exclusion, though access alone is not a panacea for social justice. Rather, other issues, such as the absence of a human interface during stressful life events accelerates disconnection, that the online claim system is imposed and that people may inadvertently select the wrong tick box, create the potential for adverse consequences and severe outcomes for people accessing services.

The chapter ‘Drive to thrive’ describes how Gateshead Local Authority has been affected by austerity. The chapter outlines Gateshead’s approach to partnership working during austerity and its work to improve outcomes on food and fuel poverty as part of the implementation of its ‘Thrive’ place-based initiative. It considers how the council advanced collaborative working to combine resources in order to meet community needs through working with the voluntary, community and social enterprise, and private sectors. It charts the development of a food distribution network that was established to distribute food to vulnerable households and considers how Gateshead facilitated the provision of free energy advice, home insulation and boiler replacement schemes for people experiencing fuel poverty. The authors situate place-based working in the context of central government cuts that affected the local authority and its partner organisations, and within the context of a large, powerful, bureaucratic organisation involved in multiple inter-organisational collaborations during times of severe and sustained financial pressure.

The chapter ‘City of Dreams’ illustrates that local authority cuts to arts and culture acted as catalyst for a new and exciting approach to enable children and young people in Newcastle and Gateshead to engage with culture and creativity. The authors suggest that City of Dreams – a collaboration between ten cultural and heritage organisations on a ten-year mission – actively involves young people in the design and delivery of the cultural offer, and has the potential to be transformative through the creation of new ways of working. It involved action research with representatives from NewcastleGateshead Cultural Venues, leading to the creation of a steering group of 16–25 year olds and a representative body of children and young people, which culminated in the development of the annual Big Culture Conversations. Newcastle University functioned as the key research facilitator for City of Dreams and established the City of Dreams seminar series, which brought academics and the wider arts, charity and other sectors working with young people together to discuss topics such as ‘youth citizenship and culture’. It involved increasing engagements with arts and culture by young people, some of whom were from disadvantaged backgrounds, developing their confidence and life skills. In its role, Newcastle University sought to draw on its own research strengths, as well as those of other regional universities, to support and be a critical friend to the project.

Part I of the book concludes with the chapter ‘Are we “all in this together”?’, which critically reflects on austerity and the COVID-19 crisis. The author argues that there are clear connections between the unequal impacts of austerity and COVID-19 on disadvantaged groups in society, and highlights the risks of applying the same austerity ideology to the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath. Consistencies between the state’s expectations of the voluntary sector and the responsibilisation agenda are discussed in relation to austerity and COVID-19, while providing a focus on the implications of austerity and the COVID-19 crisis on young people, women and front-line workers.

References

Alcock, P. (2016) Why We Need Welfare: Collective Action for the Common Good, Bristol: Policy Press.

Grönroos, C. (2011) ‘Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis’, Marketing Theory, 11(3): 279–301.

Lowe, R. (1993) The Welfare State in Britain since 1945, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Marmot, M., Allen, J., Boyce, T., Goldblatt, P. and Morrison, J. (2020) Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On, London: Institute of Health Equity.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2011) Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, Paris: OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/together-for-better-public-services-partnering-with-citizens-and-civil-society_9789264118843-en#page2

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalising space’, Antipode, 34(3): 380–404.