Nathaniel Wei has to be applauded a bit for his work on the Big Society as its figurehead. I agree with Nat Wei in one thing:

“The key test of whether something is Big Society or not is about whether it represents a genuine shift in power”

I have reluctantly concluded that, whilst it is here to stay, the Big Society is a sham. Whilst it appears superficially pro-social, resourceful, and encouraging a ‘behaviour change’ bottom-up from citizens in the public, I think the reverse is true. Like picking winners for grants to support free schools, the Big Society is fundamentally a vehicle for a select few to decide what they wish to invest in temporarily. I do not believe in pure altruism, and it will be interesting to watch who precisely benefits. The devil will be in the detail; in other words, for example, how long you pay back the loan, to whom and at level of interest. It is really, fundamentally, old win in very new bottles.

Warren Buffet is considered to be the world’s leading philanthropist in phenomenal donations towards healthcare, extreme poverty, education, access to information technology. But is he a true philanthropist? I’ve heard the “Big Society” called a “Big Con”, and much worse, and certainly Nathaniel Wei, a ‘graduate from McKinseys’, has arguably benefited from it. But what is the primary business and social driver for the “Big Society”, in the UK, and who actually benefits?

English philanthropy is not new. Two approaches seem to characterize the second half of the 19th century : on the one hand, a Victorian philanthropy, designed essentially to reward those worthy of salvation, and, on the other hand, a movement away from assistance towards self-help, the Cooperative Movement and Trade Unions. Maybe the latter is more of an approach you’d find from the left – and yes, you guessed it, the former approach I propose is more likely to come from the right.

I feel the reason that Steve Hilton has not been able to sell it in its various relaunches is that it is in many senses a highly confused model, reflecting lack of genuine intellectual discussion in business models, economics, sociology and politics. Some of the political messages are immature and need much greater work. Wei argues that ‘we need to help more people get involved’, what is the motivation for somebody, say at McKinsey’s, to give up a very well paid job to have a go at running a pub? Also, the Big Society intend sto pilot a new National Citizen Service which aims to give 16 year olds the chance to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix with people from different backgrounds, and start getting involved in their communities But how many ‘new’ people will volunteer in a new scheme than already do? It is somewhat paradoxical that I am not really interested in bashing the idea because it appears to be coming from the Conservatives. Far from it – it represents a stimulating contribution to the debate, but I feel that Nat Wei and other chief architects have badly let down David Cameron with expensive advice, but which is fundamentally built on a dodgy business model.

Historically, it is essential, first of all, to debunk the myth that the Big Society is a clever new idea. It obviously has historical influences from a diverse range of sources, and the resultant mishmash, in my view, is far from convincing. In its purest form, the “Big Society” is an example of a “social movement”, a term firm introduced in 1850 by the German Sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his book “History of the French Social Movement from 1789 to the Present” (1850). It is obviously not a global movement, although parallels can be seen in the USA, for example “Movement for Change”, but is a social movement with a local scope. This means that the activities are focused on local or regional objectives, such as protecting a specific natural area, lobbying for the lowering of tolls in a certain motorway, or preserving a building about to be demolished for gentrification and turning it into a thriving centre. Unfortunately, literature provides that such effects tend not to be long-lasting.

Clearly, the social movements have been responding to differing scales of social need. For example, in Uganda over 2 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. By 2010 more than 100 million people worldwide will have been affected. Indeed, compared to something like American Civil Rights movement, the ‘Big Society’ seems to lack an ideological driver, apart from claims by Nathaniel Wei and David Cameron that the UK residents live in a ‘broken society’. A less inflammatory mission statement is given by the Big Society Network as, “The Big Society Network is an organisation being set up by frustrated citizens for frustrated citizens, to share ideas and help everyone achieve change in their local area”. Indeed, it is very commendable that the Big Society wishes to produce powered individuals, strong neighbourhood groups, and greater community participation, but everyone knows that this is re-inventing the wheel. Such activities have been going on for decades, and did not necessitate the Big Society. So what is the unique selling point of the Big Society, and who indeed benefits the most?

So, is it a vehicle for venture philanthropy or also known as philanthrocapitalism? Yes, in my opinion, it most certainly is: look at the description of a central plank of the Big Society:

“A society in which more money, resources and powers are vested locally, thereby building benefits of increased trust, more visible results and reduced bureaucracy.”

This is a highly relevant and revealing statement, as it is made perfectly clear that the functioning of the Big Society is dependent upon measurable results: donors and grantees assess progress based on mutually determined benchmarks. Venture philanthrophy is often capitalized by a readiness to shift funds between organizations and goals based on tracking those measurable results. It is unlikely that a project would be funded for very long, as funding tends to be on a multi-year basis – typically a minimum of 3 years, on average 5-7 years. This is quite different from a true philanthropist, who is someone who engages in philanthropy; that is, someone who donates his or her time, money, and/or reputation to charitable causes.

It is also particularly noteworthy, I feel, that Big Society also puts into the mixer the social enterprise which is indeed a strong and valued economic model, as claimed on the Big Society Network. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social or environmental purpose remains central to their operation. However, it is perplexing that the Government should be proposing this as a predominant business model, as it is notorious for carrying a significant economic risk: the financial viability of social enterprises depends on the efforts of their members, who have the responsibility of ensuring adequate financial resources, unlike most public institutions.

In emerging economies in Latin America, Africa and Asia, where state provision is weak, social entrepreneurs have created large organisations that provide everything from education, Aids advice and eye operations to micro-credit. In Europe, social enterprises employ 3.5 million people, so again this is nothing new. What started on the margins has become increasingly mainstream. In the UK, the previous Labour government has played a critical support role, for example with the creation of a new legal entity – the community interest company – to accommodate enterprises that make money to do social good. Again, the business model is potentially flawed as too many social entrepreneurs are still running inspiring but small schemes. Too few can show how their inspirational new approaches have spread. Part of the reason is a lack of both capital and management skills to expand larger organisations from smaller roots.

However, these are extremely important aspects of social enterprises:

• an explicit aim of community benefit: one of the principal aims of social enterprises is to serve the community or a specific group of people. To the same end, they also promote a sense of social responsibility at local level.
• a citizen initiative: social enterprises are the result of collective ‘net’ involving people belonging to a community or to a group that shares a certain need or aim.
• decision making not based on capital ownership: this generally means the principle of ‘one member, one vote’, or at least a voting power not based on capital shares. Although capital owners in social enterprises play an important role, decision-making rights are usually shared with other shareholders.
• participatory character, involving those affected by the activity: the users of social enterprises’ services are represented and participate in their structures.
• limited distribution of profit: social enterprises include organisations that totally prohibit profit distribution as well as organisations such as co-operatives, which may distribute their profit only to a limited degree, thus avoiding profit maximising behaviour.

Finally, I agree with Nat Wei that its introduction is hopefully:

“without compromising on the quality of a given service affected, and without the vulnerable and poor being adversely impacted overall when the measure is taken together with other social justice actions happening at the same time”.”

As it stands, it is perfectly possible to delete the tranche called the ‘public sector’ in the Big Society, particularly if you consider that the private sector stands to benefit a lot.

Dr Shibley Rahman MA LLB(Hons) PhD is about to start a MBA in January 2011, and is a company director in London. He is a disabled member of the Big Society.