|
Notes
from the Devolve!/ Network Project Meeting
held in the Department of Sociology,
London School of Economics (LSE) on
Saturday 25th November 2006
This was a
joint meeting between The Network Project and Devolve!
The intention was to explore the possibility of sharing
ideas between groups involved in considering alternatives
to orthodox economics and politics. The discussion group
consisted of Ian Brown, Catharine Perry, Woody, Gian Andreone,
Chris Rogers, Maureen Boustred, Mary Fee and Peter Haslegrave.
Morning
Session
Ian Brown explained
that The Network Project was originally concerned with
the alternatives to Neoliberalism. The Network Project,
however, had now collected enough ideas to begin to put
forward a cohesive set of alternative ideas, recognising
particularly the link between local and global ideas and
movements on the one hand, and the centrality of the idea
of human responsibility (Stewardship) on the other. The
Network Project is now concerned with working out the
theoretical basis of an alternative Narrative of Stewardship,
whilst recognising the practical nature of politics, economics
and culture at both the local and global levels.
Before moving
on to the alternatives to Neoliberalism, Ian briefly sketched
the content of Neoliberal theory. The three pillars of
Neoliberal theory are:
1. Competition
Theory: this is the theory that competition, free markets
and the intentional maximisation of individual selfish
good facilitates the emergence of the best and most efficient
of all possible economic systems.
2. Legal Democracy: this theory states that the role of
government is to create a framework within which the competition
for selfish good can operate.
3. Democratic Exclusion (Public Choice Theory): this theory
justifies the exclusion of all associations and institutions
from interfering with competition, free markets and the
maximisation of selfish good.
Ian then moved
on to the alternative of a Narrative of Stewardship, which
contrasts with the Neoliberal Narrative of Competition.
In Network Project thinking, the alternatives come down
to the choice between a Framework of Competition or a
Network of Responsibility (Stewardship Theory). Stewardship
Theory suggests that human beings are quite capable of
creating Relationships of Responsibility, built on:
1. Balancing interests and responsibilities through conflict
resolution systems such as Fair and Sustainable Trade.
2. The facilitation of emergent associations and institutions
of interest to negotiate in conflict resolution systems.
3. The facilitation of emergent associations and institutions
to represent and focus responsibility (Stewardship). Scientific,
Moral and Theistic Credibility of Stewardship Theory.
Stewardship Theory claims scientific, moral and theistic
credibility, and is therefore available to both spiritual
and scientific "human types".
Stewardship
Theory is by no means a new idea. The moral and scientific
position has been made (amongst others) by Sydney Webb:
"[The Labour Party] abhors and repudiates the unscientific
and immoral doctrine that the competitive struggle for
the means of life is, in human society, either inevitable
or requisite for the survival of the fittest".
The point was
made that the Labour Party no longer abhors and repudiates
the competitive doctrine, nor does the Fabian Society
or indeed, the LSE.
The Theistic
credibility of Stewardship Theory is indicated by a quote
from the Koran: "Woe to those who stint the measure:
in the balance ye should not transgress. Weigh therefore
with fairness and scant not the balance".
- and from
Confucius: "What Heaven has conferred is called the
Path of Duty. When one cultivates the principles of his
nature and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity
he is not far from the path. What you do not want to be
done to you do not do to others."
Stewardship
Theory is also justified by new scientific work on human
development, natural conflict resolution, social neuroscience,
and in continuing theoretical development of systems and
complexity theory. These all confirm that human beings
are naturally social and naturally seek to create:
1. The associations and institutions that facilitate Stewardship.
2. The associations and institutions that facilitate conflict
resolution.
3. The associations and institutions that facilitate fair
and sustainable economics
4. The associations and institutions that facilitate local
and global governance and economics.
A slightly
deeper indication was then considered in the relation
of opposing interests. Opposing interests are a fact of
nature. However, Stewardship Theory suggests that there
is a tendency for these to become balanced through the
institution of conflict resolution systems. This is because
there is almost always a zone of overlap in which both
sides can compromise to the benefit of each. This can
be expressed in a model, such as:
FAIR WAGE:
- - - - - - - - -[
Workers' Interests - - - - -
]
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (zone
of overlap)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - [ -
- - - - Employer's Interests
]
FAIR PRICE:
- - - - - - - - -[ Consumers' Interests - -
- ]
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - (zone
of overlap)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - [ - - -
- - Sellers' Interests ]
SUSTAINABLE
PRICE: [ Environmental Need - - - -]
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(zone
of overlap)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - [
- - - - - Resource Use ]
The balance
of opposing forces leads, through the associations and
institutions of conflict management, to collective agreements,
mutuality, and ultimately to Stewardship: the conscious
and deliberate protection of the social and natural
environment. Other Areas of Stewardship Theory. The
ideas noted above, while constituting what the Network
Project sees as central ideas for alternative human
relationships, are not the whole picture. Ian mentioned
some of the ideas that the Network Project also sees
as crucial areas of alternative thought. These are (note
some repetition):
•
Another World is Possible (basic assumption). • The
World as One Economy • One World containing Many
Worlds • Systems/ Global Thinking • Interconnections
• Local and Global • Local Economics and Democracy
• Community • Enfolding of Politics, Civil
Society and Economics • Associations and Institutions
• Association of Associations = Global Humanity •
Gender • New Economics, Morality, Science •
New Philosophy and Historicism Conclusion:
In
concluding, Ian pointed out that these ideas were by no
means exhaustive, and that, in working them out, more
tended to come to light. Nevertheless, the centrality
of Stewardship in modern alternatives to orthodoxy represented
a new paradigm that went beyond Marx and Adam Smith. The
concluding remark was that Balance equals Global Justice.
•
Gian noted that the list did not include Monetary Reform.
This is significant area of alternative theory, which
directly deals with the competitive aspect of Neoliberal
orthodoxy. As Global Capitalism stands, there is competition
for money; money reform is therefore basic to change (accepted
by group without reserve). • Woody doubted the link
between reason and science (accepted; all ideologies present
themselves as reasoned science and even as morality).
• Chris noted that there was increasing competition
over technology, and that this was a significant driver
in capitalist progress (accepted). • Peter mentioned
the importance of semantics (accepted). • Mary considered
that orthodox economics is about power, and that there
was a contradiction between responsibility and power (accepted).
Also confirmed Network Project idea of bringing groups
together to consider common ideas and aims.
This
led to a discussion of the relationship between responsibility
and power, the need for a non-violent set of ideas, to
which Catharine added the importance of values to this
end.
Afternoon
Session
Woody
led the afternoon discussion by introducing the focus
of Devolve! thinking. Devolve! was originally concerned
with the problem of regional devolution for England, with
the potential for a development of an English identity
as opposed to a British identity, and with the prospects
for practical devolution of power to regions or indeed,
sub-regions. Woody noted that areas such as Cornwall had
sufficient identity to be considered a region in its own
right.
The
significant element in devolution is the ability and potential
of people to become empowered. Devolve! thinking suggests
that the equation for Empowerment is: Empowerment = Confidence
+ Responsibility & Structure + Resources. The problem
to be overcome in order to create a healthy, empowered
devolved system of governance is the problem of the centralisation
of power; and Devolve! see the British "Westminster Model"
as being fundamentally centralised and historically flawed.
This
Westminster Model owes its form to the fact of the Norman
conquest, in which power was centralised in order to facilitate
the Norman elite in their conquest and domination of the
Anglo-Saxon culture. The result of this centralisation
and domination was a major loss of English identity and
a development of an Imperialist British identity (although
Wales, Ireland and Scotland retained some national identity,
and areas such as Cornwall retained some regional identity).
The
Westminster Model led to cultural oppression through the
centralisation of economic, legal and political power
in the hands of a ruling elite. This Westminster model
is of more than historical significance, because it is
the developmental precursor of the present Neoliberal
Anglo-American Model of government. As Devolve! see it,
this centralisation needs to be countered by passing responsibility
back to the people through a process of Territorial Devolution,
with attention paid to functional sub-regions.
As
Woody explained, the concern of Devolve! is with an awakening
of responsibility at various levels of governance, and
with the associated development of a re-established Civil
Society, in which culture, economics and democracy work
together through empowered human beings to reflect our
common responsibilities.
Catharine
took over from Woody to describe some elements of Devolve!
thinking on culture. Beginning with the historical Devolve!
focus on Englishness, Catharine posed the question of
the English identity and culture; what is it, and has
it gone forever? Identification with a culture reflects
a choice. The Imperial culture of Britishness reflects
a problematic identity, which no longer seems to be good
identity to choose.
What
is a good English identity and a good English culture?
What have we got, and what do we want? Catharine suggested
that top-down culture change is questionable, and that
effective culture is generated from the bottom up, at
community level. Culture is developed meaningfully to
support the community we want. It is good to have communities;
culture is a part of the development of community, community
and culture linked in self-generating and maintaining
identity - and as such there are many sources of identity
as there are many influences and parts of community and
many routes of community development.
At this point, Peter questioned Englishness as such as
a basis of identity. Cultural identity can act as an isolating
device, and can create a prejudicial attitude to other
identities. There are other identities rather than Englishness
in England. Chris noted the problem of identification
if we work and sleep other than where our identities lie.
Chris noted that he works and sleeps outside London, but
he is still a Londoner by identity.
It was acknowledged that there was indeed a tension in
Devolve! between Englishness as such and general devolution
concepts. Nevertheless, the need for general devolution
suggests that such problems need to be addressed in the
actual development of cultures and the relationships between
and amongst them. It is for this reason that Devolve!'s
thinking is turning towards the idea of "Englander" to
denote a cultural affinity with a cross-cultural identity
based on community responsibility rather than with Englishness
as such.
The
problems of cultural relationships exist, but devolution
is seen as a way of facilitating the cohesive and interconnecting
development of diverse cultures in England, as of course
elsewhere. For Devolve!, culture is an important aspect
of devolution. The development of local theory is just
as important. At this point, Woody took over from Catharine
to discuss Devolve! ideas on Very Local Democracy.
A
significant element in Devolve! thinking is the importance
of structures which interlink to form a cohesive system
of levels in which responsibility is, on the one hand,
passed down from the governmental level, and on the other
hand, taken up from the most local level. Very Local Democracy
is concerned with the expression of this local responsibility.
In
Very Local Democracy, the primary groups involved in expressing
local responsibility are the elements that form local
associations in local civil society: Residents‚ Associations,
Tenants‚ Associations, Faith Groups, Traders‚ Associations
etc. Clearly these will vary from place to place. As it
happens, Tony Blair is committed to the idea of devolution
and local government has been instructed to pass power
to local residents etc., through devolution to area committees.
There
is therefore some elements of political will to allow
for devolution to take place. This can be treated cynically;
the area committees have to go back to the Council for
funding; and there is some evidence in Leicester that
some political players are not too happy at sharing power
with local groups. Nevertheless, Devolve! is working to
organise primary groups to create an organisation that
will be able to meet devolved political structures from
the bottom up, to coincide with the devolved powers coming
from the top down. Ward-based community alliances are
being formed, which influence Councillors. As Woody notes,
these Very Local Democracy structures are different from
voting democracy in that they are accountable to the community
through the structures of the primary groups that make
them up.
The
afternoon session ended with a discussion as to whether
the model of presentation had worked, and it was felt
that it had. The aims of the meeting had been to discuss
alternative ideas to Neoliberalism (from the Network Project
position) and to the Westminster Model (from the Devolve!
position), and to explore the possibilities of co-development
and sharing of ideas between two such groups. This was
felt to have been a success, and a commitment to work
together was indicated from both groups.
Report
by Ian Brown
Chair, The Network Project
Contact: ibrown467-at-btinternet.com
PDF
download of the above paper • Link
to the website of Devolve!
|
The Network Project: PAPER