1 Imbricated Roles

A post this week, about the presence of development workers in neighbourhoods, mentioned imbricated roles. A search for the term showed me it is not present online. Google claims they are the same as nested roles.

A nested role is one job within another.  Perhaps this happens where the job description for one job has other related tasks added to it.  The new role may have additional privileges, eg higher pay but contains an older job.

Imbricated roles, especially within community development, describe how two functions overlap.  So, a local resident employed as a development worker in their own neighbourhood has a highly imbricated role.  Note being a resident is not part of the job; their appointment may be because of their knowledge of or commitment to the area but it is not a formal part of the job description.

Unfortunately I have mislaid my copy of Skills in Neighbourhood Work by Paul Henderson and David N Thomas.  I have checked the index online for the second and fourth editions and under roles there is a section about overlapping roles.  It is possible they demystified later editions by reverting to the word overlapping.  (The word imbricated in Latin means overlapping.)

It would have been helpful to re-read their section on imbricated roles but that won’t stop me!  I favour sticking with the term imbricated roles because I think it makes a specific point about development work.  What are the implications for varying degrees of imbrication?  This is not about deciding the ideal degree of overlap so much as assessing the pros and cons of differing amounts.

What are Imbricated Roles?

I understand imbricated role to mean specifically overlap between residence in and commitment to a particular neighbourhood with the formal role of development worker.  It is easier to follow if you assume by formal role, someone appointed to do the job by some independent authority.

There may be other types of overlapping role.  A rural doctor may find, for example, their circulation around their patch means they play several roles in addition to their medical role.  But I shall use imbricated role to mean a specific commitment to the neighbourhood which at one extreme means residence in the neighbourhood.

To illustrate why this is important I shall consider four degrees of overlap and their strengths and weaknesses.

75% – 100% Living in the neighbourhood

These percentages are notional but this degree of overlap strongly implies the worker lives in the neighbourhood where they are practicing development work.  100% may be someone born there and living their life in the same place.  75% may be someone who moved into the neighbourhood when they started to practice as a development worker.

Many workers choose to do that.  Of course living there can mean a variety of things.  The worker could move into housing in some out-of-the-way corner, or in an adjacent neighbourhood.  They might live there but not make a big thing of it and spend a lot of their time elsewhere.

The big strength of this approach, especially for the lifelong resident, is stability.  This is someone with a proven commitment to the place, trusted and so able to act as a catalyst for change.

However, there are disadvantages.  Potentially the biggest problem is role confusion.  If the worker is not clear about the difference between community activism and development work, the chances are they will find they are paid to be a community leader, the role played before employment!  This role confusion has he dual effect of (1) undermining the activist role, and (2) downplaying the development role.

Perhaps this approach works for some.  From experience, I would not recommend workers take on this type of overlapping role.  Mostly they need more distance.

50% – 75%  Identifying with the neighbourhood

Here the worker is not resident in the neighbourhood but spends a lot of time there, drinking in the pubs, participating in events, etc.  They may live outside the neighbourhood, far enough away to experience some distance.  Most workers find they drift into this degree of overlap because they might have moved into the first neighbourhood they worked and then their job moved on and they were happy to stay where they were.

Where a worker enjoys building inter-personal relationships, this approach may work very well.  They have some distance from the neighbourhood, perhaps enough to be perceived as an outsider but also likely to be trusted.

The temptation is to identify too closely with activist work.  Many workers find they are doing admin for local groups or participating in leadership roles.  I found it is too easy to be drawn into taking on roles that should be occupied by local people, perhaps because the worker is one of the most skilled people around and has the time to do it.

25% – 50%  Accompanying the Neighbourhood

This level of overlap implies someone who committed to developing a particular neighbourhood and approaches it by mentoring community leaders.  A development worker of this type will stand out as different from the local residents.  I found I was more successful when I wore a jacket and tie in my development worker role.  It reminded residents and other local workers that I was an outsider with a specific role and it also reminded me.

This approach does not imply reduced commitment to the work, it is an alternative approach and perhaps better suited to the more introverted worker.  It does have the big advantage of making a clear distinction between the development and activist roles.

The big disadvantage, as the degree of overlap declines, is disengagement from the neighbourhood.  Finding a balance between an outsider who brings new ideas and resources to a neighbourhood and someone delivering a government scheme is really important.  There is a fine line between development work at this level of overlap and simply being a worker in the community.

0% – 25%  Independence from the neighbourhood

At first this degree of overlap may seem to be a non-starter.  There are any number of workers in the community placed there for a few months to deliver some scheme.  Their focus is in delivering their employers’ programmes and not local development work.

However, an example of someone who rarely or never visits the neighbourhood and yet has a development role might be the manager of a community development team.  They might care about several neighbourhoods and act as a mentor for their team.

I have suggested in my ebook, Community Development is Dead!, the future of development work is centrally based teams with no-one assigned to specific neighbourhoods.  They would work by supporting local leaders or activists.  They would visit a neighbourhood to help with the design of events or activities but the networking would be largely carried out by local activists.

A similar role might be carried out by an online development worker who coaches local activists.  These may be in communities far away, they are never likely to visit.

Can this work?  The potential disadvantages are obvious.  The development worker would not develop the networks of  contacts, the relationships that result in successful development work.  This would be and possibly should be a task for local activists.  Certainly it is hard to see how this might work for someone with no experience of working on the ground.  But existing practitioners and even retired practitioners may be able to contribute something of value from a distance.

Conclusion

I have attempted to present each degree of overlap in the most positive light possible without denying the disadvantages.  The point is to show what is at stake.  Each degree of overlap has strengths and weaknesses and it is important the worker understands the dynamic of their chosen approach.  It certainly is not a given that the only valid approach is to live there.  Development workers soon find the work is simply not that simple.

So, what percentage would you assign to your approach to development work?  What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of your chosen approach?

3 Incarnation and Community Development

Incarnation and community development may seem an incongruous title. However, the debate about the degree to which development workers need to belong to the neighbourhood where they work has been around for several decades.  Should they live there?  Are they one of the people or a guide or mentor?

The theological term, incarnation may help us understand this debate.  It implies total commitment and so certainly challenges my experience.  I’ve found total commitment can lead to confusion between the roles of development workers and local activists.

Incarnation

Incarnation means literally “of the flesh”, “carne” being the root of words like “carnivore”.

Theologians use the word to describe the doctrine that Jesus was both God and human. The exact nature of this union of God and human was the subject of much debate during the early Christian centuries. The issue was apparently resolved at the Council of Chalcedon. I say apparently because it led to the first of the major divisions in the Christian church.  (Follow the link to find out why it’s best not to get involved in this debate!)

I’m not going into this in detail because I want to focus on the impact of the doctrine on real life.

Whatever the detailed nature of God’s presence in flesh, it implies some basic things:

Of these my view is physical presence is far and away the most important. Christian teaching has always been about the immediate presence of God, as one who walks alongside.  Those who believe in or befriend God embody that presence.

Theresa’s Prayer

Many will know the prayer of St Theresa of Avila:

“Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours …”

What does this actually mean? There are debates between those who believe we must offer God our hearts and those who believe our minds are more important. The latter emphasise belief is important. The former emphasise love.

If what you believe is all important, you are likely to be fundamentalist in your theology. Your problem is the extent to which you are able to cope with challenges to your chosen belief. Ultimately can you cope with reality?

With the heart, the orientation is to a romantic view of faith. The problem here is love rarely begins with attraction. It begins with action and emotional love may follow.

What we learn from the doctrine of incarnation is feet are important, not hearts or minds. Wherever your feet are, there too are your head and heart. St Theresa says as much in the second part of her prayer:

“… yours are the eyes through which Christ compassion cares for the people of this world, yours are the feet through which Christ goes about doing good and yours are the hands through which Christ now brings a blessing.”

Note how Theresa makes incarnational life concrete (or flesh!)  It isn’t head and heart but the practical bits of the body that count.

Community Development

There is a debate among community development workers about imbricated roles. Imbricated means overlapped, in the sense that tiles on a roof must overlap to be watertight.  (I can’t find anything online that uses this term.  Nested roles seem to be closest but has specific management connotations.  “Skills in Neighbourhood Work” by Henderson and Thomas uses this term, at least it was in earlier editions!)

Is a development worker more effective if the worker lives in the community where they work? When I started as a development worker, I believed the answer was obviously yes and indeed it may be yes for many successful development workers.

It didn’t work for me. I discovered community development works as a walk alongside a community; it is not served by pretending to be part of it. People need to understand your role and some distance helps everyone understand it.

Being physically present is essential but also separation in some way helps. When you bring a valued external perspective into a neighbourhood, it doesn’t help to identify totally with the neighbourhood.

Your presence is important. How you practice being present depends on your skill and experience as a development worker. It would be interesting for workers to compare notes on how they walk alongside so that they are present in without becoming of the neighbourhood.

A really interesting question is: does this make community development online impossible? I’ll discuss this next time.

0 Origin Stories for Products Services and Causes

A few weeks ago I published the post your business story and most of it applies to origin stories for products services and causes.

I argued why your business story is likely to need less prominence than your personal story.  The same applies to origin stories for specific products services and causes. Unless they have some unique origin, the story of you slogging away for months is not likely to be gripping. This is not to say the story should be omitted, it may answer questions potential customers are asking. So, how you write the story and the way you present it is important.

Origin stories for causes are more likely to be interesting and so may need more prominence. Causes need to be promoted to people who are not aware of them and will not gain personal benefit from supporting them. So, a good story may be an excellent way to capture their attention and gain their support.

If you happen to have a good story, the same is true for products and services. Remember the story does not have to be long. A couple of sentences may be all you need to get it across. There’s no problem telling longer stories; a good story will hold your site visitors’ attention. Remember you can use audio or video as well as written copy.

Three Useful Questions

Here are three questions that might help you find an origin story for each product, service or cause. Try writing your answers; take as many words as you need and then edit them and be ruthless!

Your offer’s origin story may be an important part of your sales funnel.  On the awareness ladder, it is at step four, where you differentiate your product service or cause from other solutions in the market.

It’s always interesting to share examples and so if you know any compelling origin stories, share them in the comments.

0 Money Circulation in the Local Economy

I’ve explained this to several people but so far not written about it!  Writing about the local economy, it is easy to imply local economy means money is somehow ring-fenced to particular localities.  The key thing to remember is money circulation is the key to local economies.

The wealth of any particular geographical area would be measured (if it is possible to measure it) as the flow of money through that area.  Money accumulated is not a measure of wealth because accumulated money is not active.  Whether it is in a shoebox under a bed or held in a bank account, inactive money does not contribute to local wealth.

Sometimes people use the leaky bucket as an analogy.  The thing is you need the leaks.  What matters is where the money flows out to and that the flow in at least matches or exceeds the flow out!

Money Circulation Tornado!

Think of a tornado.  Air circulates in a column that narrows as it approaches the ground.  If you look down on it from above, you would see a spiral of air currents if air currents were visible.

This is certainly over-simplified but the point I want to make is the circulation is not solely around a neighbourhood but has to flow through other parts of the economy.  In practice money will circulate in far more complex ways.  It is impossible to map the flow of money but it may be possible to find out what blocks the flow.

Money can accumulate at any turn of the spiral.  However, the further out you go, the more likely it is accumulation of money will damage the economy.  However, there are some advantages to accumulation of finance.  Finance can be used for large-scale infrastructure projects.  These projects bring jobs and finance to local areas.  This is usually described as investment.

There are generally two ways money accumulates.

The first is through taxation.  The big advantage of taxation is use of money is to some degree transparent and accountable.  Public sector finance creates jobs and supports the economy in local areas.

However, the trend in recent years has been to privatise public services.  When local authorities use tax payers money to enter into long-term contracts, where voters are not permitted to see the terms and conditions of those contracts, they have sold their democratic accountability.  I’ve never understood how large corporations can possibly be more efficient than public services; corporations pay shareholders and this is an additional cost.

The corporations are the second way in which capital accumulates.  Even here the scale of the accumulation is important.  A small developer who raises capital to build houses probably does little damage to the local economy.  Indeed I suspect many such businesses are finding it harder to raise capital.  Alternatively, a small landlord who buys property to rent may not be such good news.

How is Accumulated Capital Used?

It is worth asking what the wealthy spend their capital on.  The reason finance is not easy to find for small businesses is because most of it is going into purchase of property.  By property I mean things like houses and infrastructure but also shares in companies.

If you own stuff you control it. This is known as a rentier economy and the point is, it is an economy that has slipped the moorings of democratic control.  What we need to understand is a rentier economy is an economy that is anti-business.

It is alarming to hear that production is declining.  We’ve seen further closures of steel companies in recent weeks and this is a sure sign that financial transactions take precedence over transactions benefiting the whole community.

One of the biggest political lies is that opposition to accumulated wealth, or inequality, is the same as being anti-business.  On the contrary, the City of London and similar, are the enemies of business.  They take finance out of the economy and are not democratically accountable for the finance they own.

How do we redress the balance?  Clearly, getting the right balance of accountable capital into the economy is important.  One simple thing would be to abolish fractional reserve banking.  This is where when banks make a loan, they do not have to match what they loan from their reserves.  In effect every time a bank makes a loan, it creates money.  This means the flow of money into the economy is not controlled by the state.  (The link connects to Positive Money, a campaign against fractional reserve banking.)

If banks had to match their loans to their reserves, this would reduce the impact of finance on the economy.  Whilst the volume of money in circulation would be reduced, so would inequality.

Of course, it is not as simple as that, it never is.  My main point today is to underline the interests of the wealthy  oppose the interests of local businesses.  Those who oppose capitalism do no good if they oppose local business.  The challenge is not to abolish capitalism so much as to find a capitalism that benefits everyone.

1 Christian Perfection

Methodism belongs to a Christian theological tradition known as Arminianism, which takes its name from the theologian Arminius, usually contrasted with Calvin.

Calvin was a barrister and never ordained. He was a preacher and insisted upon punctuality, so he sold pocket watches. He made a fortune and founded the first bank in Geneva; an entrepreneur as well as a spiritual leader. John Wesley the founder of Methodism had profound problems with Calvin’s followers.

Arminius’ based his theology on Calvin’s. The main difference, in the public mind, is Calvinists believe in the pre-determined election of believers to salvation. Arminians believe salvation is possible for all believers. Fascinating as this debate may be, I do not intend to pursue it here (sighs of relief all round).

Wesleyan Arminianism

This topic is an aspect of Wesleyan Arminianism called Christian Perfection. This is Methodism’s most radical doctrine. What it means is God’s love can be perfected in any believer; they do not stop sinning, indeed they experience greater awareness of their sins, as their life in prayer and devotion to God develops.

So, the first step the believer takes is justification. They enter a relationship with God and then over a lifetime, grow in faith and expression of God’s love. Notice perfection is not an end state, it is essentially ongoing growth into God’s love.

The invitation is to dig deeper; to study the scriptures, pray regularly and above all practice loving in the world.  Believers are aided in this by God’s grace through the Holy Spirit, who acts as a guide.  Some people argue perfection is solely the work of the Spirit; another debate I shall not pursue here.

Christian perfection implies you dig deep into your own tradition to reach out into the world. This doctrine unites Christians because as we explore our own traditions, the stories told by our fellow believers, we find common ground. Unity is common ground discovered and not something negotiated; we discover it by reaching out to others in love.

Truth as Conversation

Note this is an alternative take on what I wrote in my last post about truth as conversation. There I started with  conversation and suggested it generates new insights. Here the point is dig into your tradition, the deeper you go the more you will find common ground with people in other traditions.

This blog is about building community online and in this sequence of posts, I’m exploring how to equip ourselves for working in community. The Internet enables anarchic free-for-alls, through trolling or unethical marketing. It also enables collaboration around the world through non-hierarchical networks. This is not a new vision and it is at the root of many of the greatest thinkers in all religious faiths.

Building community means we must cultivate the ability to share with those who do not hold to the same beliefs as we do.  Trolling is one example of behaviour where someone is unsure of their beliefs.  The temptation is to get your retaliation in first.  Encounters between people who are sure of their chosen tradition are quite different.  For them an encounter with a new idea is an opportunity for deeper exploration of their own tradition.

We have a long way to go and my next port of call is at a theological idea, incarnation, literally “in the flesh”. A moment’s reflection and you will see this could be highly relevant!

0 Unique Causes Products and Services

Causes

Causes are not usually unique in the same way as products or services. Usually, a cause presents itself to people who promote it. People rarely choose a cause because it is unique.  Just as a cause will present itself and demand a response, so will a unique product or service.

Unique causes are a headache because they may not have a market. Where a cause is unpopular, the challenge is to find supporters. They may not be aware of the cause or even hostile to it.

An unpopular cause will need promotion to find its market. You don’t choose the cause because it is unpopular but identify the need and seek to make it popular.  In this sense a unique cause can be more difficult to market than a unique product or service.

Products and Services

With products and services, the usual route is to find something that’s potentially popular and market it. There are a number of commodity-types that sell well, eg money, health, sex, sport; but it is harder to be unique with these. You’ll notice the environment is not in this list, so perhaps something that benefits the environment needs additional attributes from the more popular categories. Solar panels may for some people be popular because they are good for the environment but they also save money on fuel bills. It can be argued protecting the environment is good for health, although this is a more general advantage and less likely to impact on the life of any particular person.

The main advantage of a unique offer, is it is a clear signal to your particular market that your offer is for them. People need to know you are speaking to them because what you are offering is for them.

You may be willing to sell to anybody but in reality most people are not interested. Be clear how your offer is unique and people to whom it appeals are more likely to listen.

Competition and Collaboration

Your competitors will be helpful here. Those who sell something similar may have found your market and so you may be able to find a similar group for your offer or adjust your offer to something different for the same group.

Competitors will also give you some idea of where there is a market. Your offer may be unique but if it does not have a market, you have a problem; either your market does not exist or else you have not found your market. It is not always easy to know whether a new idea has a market.

Some people argue it is better to compete in established markets and sometimes this is true. Competitors may be aware their market is bigger than they can manage and if so, there may be opportunities for collaboration. If you have something that might appeal to a competitor’s market, it may be possible to collaborate.

Collaboration is another topic but it is important to remember businesses generally help each other out. Cut-throat competition is a media myth. Often new businesses who have not discovered the myth, come across as dubious sales people. If you have a unique idea, your task is to market it and part of that is finding the help you need to turn it into something people want to buy.

This post is one of series about the products, services and causes element of the circuit questionnaire.

0 Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future

Whilst in some respects Paul Mason’s “Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future” is a good read, I found it disappointing.  I expected at some point to understand what Mason means by postcapitalism and whilst I understand why it is not possible to define it, the concept seems incomplete.

The argument is capitalism cannot adjust to the Internet age because the Internet makes production effectively free.  Work no longer has financial value.  People collaborate and create new things because they enjoy innovation.  But as soon as you create something, it can be duplicated for next to nothing by machines.  This applies to material as well as digital products; once machines are in place, production requires little contribution from human beings.

Exactly how this brave new world operates is naturally a mystery because it is still emerging and so we cannot fully discern its shape.  Capitalism has been around for about 200 years.  The earlier economic system, feudalism, lasted many centuries longer.  Inequality is a major issue today.  The market doesn’t work properly because 1% hoover up most of the resources.  Feudalism and its precursors do not seem to be any better.  Inequality was just as much a feature of the Roman Empire, itself a pattern for every dictatorship we’ve seen since.

It is hard to see how allowing a new paradigm to emerge, trusting it will be fairer than the one we have, is going to solve anything.

Resisting the Inevitable

Mason takes a lot of time explaining Marxist theory.  This is interesting and the best part of the book.  He describes how capitalism’s story is of long-term cycles.  Someone invents something, it opens up new possibilities and so the economy grows.  As more people take on the new development, returns fall and the economy moves into recession.  It seems the latest cycle has broken down; capitalism cannot resolve the current cycle created by the Internet.

Possibly this theory shows the struggles of the last century are the struggles of the proverbial bald men fighting over a comb.  It has never been a fight between capitalism and anti-capitalism (called communism, socialism or, bizarrely, liberalism (a more pro-capitalist ideology is hard to imagine)) but a fight between capitalisms.

The Soviet Union was not an alternative to capitalism but state capitalism.  China today is managing to be capitalist without the democratic trappings of the West.

In truth we can design our own capitalisms.  After all, the issue is not the value of capital but the ownership of capital.  When 1% of people own most of the capital you can expect the economy to be less healthy.  Demanding this should end is not demanding an end to capitalism.

One interesting point Mason makes is the working class in the UK did not follow the Soviet route but chose to reform capitalism.  One such route was trade unions.  Their approach to capitalism was so threatening to the wealthy that the Tories crushed them in the 1980s and still feel threatened by the feeble rump that remains.

Co-operation: an alternative?

Another approach, Mason hardly mentions, is co-operatives.  The co-operative movement was immensely diverse during its glory days and presented an alternative economy within the imperialist economy of the British Empire.  It was crushed during the 1980s too, to the extent most people no longer understand mutuality.

So, how about this vision of post-capitalism-as-we-know-it?  Run the corporations, big businesses and public services as mutuals to set the standard for the economy.  Smaller, local businesses can be mutuals but self-employed are able to set up smaller businesses.  This allows people the flexibility to experiment with new ideas at a local level.

In such a local economy, people still have money and property but a lot of what they own is part shares in mutual businesses.

The Internet

Mason claims the digital revolution is a main cause of the current recession and transition to some unknown future.  He actually writes little about the digital revolution and in that respect the book is a disappointment.  The problem is I can’t help asking whether he would hold to his analysis if he knew more about the digital revolution.

One obvious issue is the digital revolution works only when most people link to it and that costs money.  If the machines can open up something new, how does everyone take part?  It may be true that a lot online is free but it is free only once you have purchased the equipment and access to the Internet you need.

Who Decides How Technology Works?

The reason so much is free online is a decision taken by the people who invented the Internet.  Lanier in his book, “Who Owns the Future?” says the links we use are one way; they point to another page.  You cannot track back to the original page through the same link.  If they had chosen that option it would have been possible to track everyone’s contribution and they could have earned a share in any profit made through their contribution.

They made these early decisions for good reasons but the decisions that prevail are the ones that favour those with power.  The information you put on Facebook, for example, benefits Facebook’s owners. The Internet is an unparalleled opportunity to aid communication within and between communities.  We have hardly begun to explore its potential.  Our ancestors achieved unbelievable things through mutuals with limited transport (trains) and mass communications (newspapers and the telegraph).

What do you think?  Do we wait for Mason’s postcapitalist world and then decide whether we want it?  Or do we follow the example of the Rochdale Pioneers and shape the new world from within in our own way?

1 Truth as Conversation

As I expected, start writing about spirituality and the subject proliferates! Last time, describing my spiritual roots, I asked “what is truth?” and promised to explore this question in more depth.

Pilate, an officious and brutal man by all accounts, asked this question; perhaps not someone noted for his concern for truth. The exchange appears only in John’s Gospel (18: 37, 38) and Jesus claims he has come to bear witness to the truth “and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice”. “Truth”, says Pilate, “what is that?” and then walks out without waiting for an answer.

Pilate is a bureaucrat; he’s not interested in answering his own question, he is interested in getting himself out of a difficult situation.

But Jesus does not define truth, he is there to bear witness to it. It’s almost as if truth is out there but somehow beyond our grasp. “I’m sure there is such a thing as truth, just don’t ask me to tell you what it is!”

Truth As Conversation

So, how does this work? The answer is conversation. Truth emerges from conversation, see my post about generative conversation, for example. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate is in John’s Gospel, which begins with the words “In the beginning was the Word”. The English word  is logos in Greek. What exactly does logos mean?

It is not possible to convey the nuances of any word in translation. John wrote in common Greek, the Greek spoken by ordinary people. Logos can be translated as word but if you think about it, words take on meanings in conversation. The first line of John’s Gospel could just as accurately be translated “in the beginning there was the Conversation.”

Truth as conversation emerges from various types of conversation, which can be between people, between a person and God (prayer) or between a person and the world (science).

Truth is a journey, a journey that never arrives at a destination. Sometimes the dead hand of religion or politics tries to silence the conversation and we all know where that leads.

Most genuine religious or spiritual leaders understand this and so value hospitality towards those from other traditions because great conversations happen where people of different traditions start talking. Many traditions actively encourage dialogue because it deepens their insights into their own tradition.

Fundamentalists understand truth as something final and complete. They have texts they believe to be true in the superficial sense of being a historic given. They do not understand these texts are given to us specifically for interpretation – when we question scripture, it encourages us to think in a deeper way.

This is why the radical atheists are so profoundly wrong. They make the same mistake as fundamentalists, believing there is one interpretation of any religious text. My religious text may not be what you would choose, if you are an atheist, but my question, is what challenges your beliefs?

Texts from my tradition challenge my beliefs and help me understand my own deeper motivations. Texts from other traditions can help me understand my own; my appreciation of my tradition deepens as I engage with others. It can be harder if you don’t have a book but a book can be an immense barrier if your interpretation is the last word.

Next time I shall show you how my tradition helps me understand the nature of truth.  How have you found conversations leading to deeper understanding?

0 Formats of Products Services and Causes

Whilst the formats of your products services and causes might seem obvious, it is always worth consideration. So, what is a format?

If you’re selling a course, you have various options. You can

People who make one purchase are likely to make repeated purchases and the same applies in principle to causes. However, people complain about pushy causes and so it is better to aim to build relationships, so customers can choose to stay in contact. Building an online relationship is a real possibility, with no equivalent before the Internet.

Someone who donates should choose their degree of future involvement. An occasional email update is maybe all they need. Others may seek active engagement and so it is worth having options for them.  You might not call them customers but the same ethical issues apply as for business customers; they need to be able to unsubscribe from your lists, for example.

How do your formats of products services and causes influence the way you manage your offers?

2 Reorientating Economics

In most debates about capitalism, it seems, no-one has a clue what it is they are talking about!  Capitalism has become a catch-all for the modern economy.  I heard two Conservatives debating capitalism on the radio the other morning.  Is capitalism essentially free enterprise?  Or does it also encompass the financial markets (a misnomer if ever there was one) and capital accumulation with no connection to production?

If small businesses are part of a capitalist economy, then so are co-operatives.    Mutuals hold wealth in common and some people do not believe this is really capitalism.  Their view is capitalism is about accumulation of personal wealth.

I have argued elsewhere that accumulation of wealth is the wrong priority.  Wealth needs to circulate and to measure its circulation is to measure the economy’s health.  How do we set about reorienting economics?

I’m not an economist and so one problem I have had is finding an economist who discusses these ideas.  Perhaps Roberto Mangabeira Unger, whom I mentioned in my post Approaches to Social Innovation a couple of weeks ago, is one such economist.  If you click on the link over his name it will take you to his Wikipedia page.

I make no apology for basing this post on a Wikipedia page; you are following the development of my thinking and this is as far as I’ve got with his contribution.  I intend to read some of his books and will review them later.  For now, if you want to follow these thoughts you can scroll down the Wikipedia page to Economic Thought and read on from there.

Today I shall highlight two insights from these paragraphs.  I’m sure I shall return to these themes in the future.

Classical and Marginalist Economics

Unger distinguishes these two approaches.  Classical economics focuses on social value and this means economics  has a vision for the future.  You can look at what’s happening and say, “We don’t like that so let’s change the way we do things.”

Marginalist economics began as a response to socialism and is the dominant approach today.  It is an empirical approach to economics, which claims to be more scientific because it measures things.  You can look at what’s happening and say, “It’s a pity things are that way but there’s nothing we can do about it because that’s what the statistics say.”

Unger seems to be saying there is something profoundly wrong with marginalist economics but I don’t think he is advocating a wholesale return to classical economic models.  So, what is his model?

Permanent Innovation

This is a massive generalisation but it seems to me Unger has thought through the implications of an economy based on permanent innovation.  There are, he argues, no real economic eras such as feudalism or capitalism.  These are rationalisation we impose upon history.  What actually happens is a struggle, as I see it, between those with a practical, innovatory approach who seek problems and solutions and those who have an absolutist, ideological approach who seek certainty and domination.

The former tends to be reformist and the latter revolutionary.  Looked at this way, we can see both approaches are potentially flawed.  The practical approach can lose sight of social values, whilst the ideological approach can stifle innovation, running after a false vision of what human society can be.

He advocates a revolutionary reformist approach, an approach designed to make politicians on both the left and the right worried!  This is exactly where I have found myself, advocating a national localised economy.  It looks reformist to the left and revolutionary to the right.  It is the approach most co-operative and trade-union movements took in the UK.  Compare their approach with the 1917 revolution in Russia.

How to Stimulate the Economy

I fully intend to return to Unger’s contribution in future posts.  In the meantime, I shall finish by listing three key policies he advocates.  They are all about encouraging innovation in the local economy:

The Wikipedia article hints that Unger’s work is worth exploration.  Leave a comment if you know his work or find what we know so far exciting (you’re allowed to be excited even if you don’t agree!)