Anna Coote (New Economics Foundation)

nef (the new economics foundation)

markets & money

society

Communities, culture, health and

well-beingAnna Coote

new economics foundationSeptember 2011


markets & money

society

Some context...

Three interdependent ‘economies’ profoundly influence policy on all fronts


markets & money

society

Some challenges

1. What’s the point of connecting communities?

2. What’s the strategy ?3. Who’s in the driving seat?

4. Who’s got the time?5. What about inequalities?

6. Investing upstream or downstream and how is success measured?


markets & money

society

An over-arching goal for this project?

Sustainable social justice and well-being for all


markets & money

society

Sustainable social justice

The fair and equitable distribution of social, environmental and economic

resources between people, places and generations


markets & money

society

Well-being for all

Emotional well-being, satisfying life, vitality, resilience and self-esteem… positive

functioning…supportive relationships… trust and belonging…

for everyone regardless of background, ability or circumstances


How can we do this?


markets & money

society

‘Communities’…

…are shaped by a range of underlying, interlinked systems

and structures


markets & money

society

We can’t rely on growingthe market economy…

we can only hope to safeguard the natural economy…

butwhat about the social or

‘core economy’?

Where’s the potential?


The real wealth ...

The ‘core economy’

is made up of countless

under-valued and priceless

human and social assets

that make it possible for society

to flourish.


societyby recognising, valuing and nurturing abundant

human resources...

... such as time, energy, wisdom, experience, knowledge, skills; love, empathy, watchfulness, teaching,

learning...

... and making more and better use of them to meet shared needs...?

Can we grow the ‘core economy’…


Co-production: the new norm ?

Rushey Green Time Bank


A deep-rooted story…


Key features ofco-production ...

• Recognising people as assets• Building on people’s existing

capabilities• Promoting mutual aid and reciprocity• Developing peer support networks• Breaking down barriers between

professionals and recipients• Facilitating rather than delivering


“Doctor and kitchen fitter

become paid-uppub friends of

lonely pensioner after

son advertised for drinking

companions”Daily Mail, April

2008

It’s not quite personal budgets...


It’s much more than...• consultation• volunteering• co-designing services• personalisation

It can help to …• strengthen social networks• improve well-being• prevent needs arising• transform public services and make

them sustainable


But who’s got the time?

Some people have much more control over their

time than others…

…paid and unpaid time is

shared out unequally

between people


What could a gradual move

towards shorter, more flexible paid

working hourshelp to achieve?

Using time differently?


No such thing as a new idea…

“In the 21st centurya 15-hour week

will suffice, as we turn instead to

“how to use freedom from

pressing economic cares.”

John Maynard Keynes, 1930,“Economic possibilities for our

grandchildren”


Possible gains?

More people in paid work……more time to be parents,

carers, active citizens……a chance to get off the

consumer treadmill, slow down and live more sustainably……more gender equality…

…more productivity hour-for-hour…

…a more prosperous and viable economy…

(as long as we learn from the French and build the right

incentives over time)


What about inequalities?

Disability-free life expectancy

at birthby

neighbourhood income level,

England 1999-2003

Fair Society, Healthy Lives, 2010


Conditions for inclusion?

Capacity to participate depends on education, income, family, environment, knowledge, confidence, time, energy.

Access is varied because organisations have boundaries drawn by kinship, law, friendship, duty, tradition, geography, politics, and class…. they include some and exclude others … some are much more powerful.

Time is needed to participate in the ‘Big Society’. Some have much more control over their time than others, especially low earners with big family responsibilities.

Capacity, access and time...are all unequally distributed, so it may be much harder for some to participate in or benefit from community-based activities.


Moving upstream to invest in measures that prevent harm

could improve well-being, make better

use of public resources and

stave off heavy-handed state intervention.

Upstream or downstream?


Example:losses from illness

associated with health inequalities in England

cost more than £60 billion a year

‘productivity losses £31-33bn.

reduced tax revenue and higher welfare payments

of £20-32bnincreased treatment costs

well in excess of £5bn.’

Fair Society, Healthy Lives2010

Costs of failing to prevent?


markets & money

society

Investing not for labour productivity and

economic growth ...... but for

sustainable development,well-being and social justice...

...which means new ways of accounting for returns on investment

and measuring success or failure.

A ‘social investment state’?


markets & money

society

Some questions1. Connecting communities for what purpose?2. Combined impacts of natural, social and market

‘economies’?3. What helps the ‘core economy’ to flourish and

expand?4. Does co-production add value and if so how?5. Impacts of time use on local activities?6. Meeting the challenge of inclusion and equalities?7. Costs and benefits of preventing harm?8. Measuring which returns on investment – and

how?9. Who drives the agenda and who does the

research?

Anna Coote (New Economics Foundation)

Technology

Transcript of Anna Coote (New Economics Foundation)