Would we have had social enterprise without Margaret Thatcher?

Thatcherism taught us that a mixed market in the public sector is the future, and that a 'state or market' debate is outdated

Margaret Thatcher – a key figure in the history of the social enterprise movement? Photograph: Sportsphoto Ltd./Graham Whitby-Boot/Allstar

There probably aren't many Margaret Thatcher fans among social entrepreneurs, with most attributing the growth of market economics in social arenas to the measures introduced by Tony Blair. But would we have had the Right to Request without de-nationalisation or the Right to Buy?

As Ed Miliband said during parliament's tribute sitting, Thatcher was right to recognise that our economy needed to change. In 1982, she said:"How absurd it will seem in a few years' time that the state ran Pickfords removals and the Gleneagles Hotel."

Thatcher introduced the idea that government should stop being the default employer and that the public sector needed mixed models of delivery – thinking that has been shared by successive governments ever since.

Looking at public sector reform through the point of view of theTransition Institute, set up to promote increased social value in public service created through non-public sector providers, we can see two major spikes in change; the first when Thatcher allowed the private sector to enter the domain of public services such as in municipal maintenance and waste collection; and the second when Blair introduced the concept of social enterprise into education, health and the then Department of Trade and Industry.

At my organisation, the Transition Institution, we know that the market economy drives down costs but can also fail if equal priority is not given to the needs of service users and the wider community, termed social value. Our work shows what can be achieved when the priority of cost effective services are shared with the needs of those that rely on services. We promote the work of co-operative schools, staff-led community interest youth services, and mutual delivery of community care.

The Transition Institution calls for plurality, a drive for an increase in social and economic value, demonstrating the coexistence of free market forces and social responsibility. The introduction of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and the support of the cabinet office, led by Francis Maude, for the promotion of mutuals within the public sector have encouraged those seeking change in this field, but progress is slow.

Thatcher was perhaps the great advocate of the free market, even though employment in the public sector was 3% higher when she left office than it is now. She undoubtedly questioned the monopoly of the state and did not limit her introduction of market forces to the nationalisation of British Airways, British Gas and British Telecom, but went on to assert that the state can not commission, deliver and appraise every service without the emergence of a conflict of interest that does not serve the wider public, an idea continued under Blair.

In 2011, David Cameron said: "The Blair government took some good steps, like foundation hospitals and academy schools, but they were too tentative … The public already benefits from services delivered by private and third sector providers, from running walk-in clinics to providing school caretakers, and the government is right to recognise that there is scope to do more."

Yet even with that commitment and other stated aims to grow mutualism, social value and community engagement, we have yet to see a third spike. Many prospective and new public sector spin-outs continue to be confronted by sceptical parent authorities and voracious private sector competitors with the advantage that they can get in quick. As in Thatcher's era, it is money that counts: then inflation hit 21% and drove the government to think the unthinkable. Today, it's the deficit and, with banks limiting borrowing, those with access to capital are moving faster. I do not have the results of the 2013 national Transition Institute surveyyet, but I am willing to guess that access to capital is a big issue for today's independent public service providers.

Margaret Thatcher introduced an idea that continues to grow, that of a mixed market in the public sector. Her scepticism about the public sector led to a deep-seated faith, shared by some in government today, that only unfettered competition can give us quality and affordability. In contrast, some on the left maintain that only the state can care for its citizens.

This is 2013 not 1983 and if the banking crisis and subsequent recession have taught us anything, it is that it may be hard to describe and tricky to measure but what the public sector needs is a mixed approach – only a combination of competition tempered by social value can create affordable and sustainable world-class public services.

Allison Ogden-Newton is chair of the Transition Institute.

Ed Miliband and Steve Reed launch "Towards Cooperative Councils" with a contribution from Allison Ogden-Newton

Allison Ogden-Newton
Allison is the chair of the Transition Institute

The architecture of public services in the UK is in transition. Across the National Health Service, local authorities, neighbourhood schools and libraries, our public service institutions are being remodelled. 

So when is social not social?

'Hot housing" at the Westminster Hub

This week I spoke at a fascinating debate with the complex title of “The Social Hydra; the practical emergence of the social economy and the challenges it builds for public good and private profit” at the Westminster Hub.

The debate was introduced by the prolific Indy Johar the man responsible for the success of the Westminster Hub, a vibrant resource for social entrepreneurs right in the heart of the Capital. Indy is one of those people recognised as a thinker who trained as an architect but now works across the policy spectrum wrestling with the big questions. In this instance Indy opened the debate with a challenge, which was he wanted us to think about the real nature of social. What did we think social meant, where was it being stretched and twisted and he wanted us, the contributors, to make ourselves vulnerable by sharing with the audience our worries about where we felt we were struggling with the concept.

Gulp I thought, sometimes I have been accused of being a little too academic in the way I approach some subjects but this was a full blown theoretical discussion complete with an audience who quickly indicated an appetite for gritty debate.

In fact the twitter sphere was alight with some great comments that I tried to follow on my phone which probably made me look like a gambling addict monitoring my progress on an online bingo site as I kept glancing at the screen, pressing a few keys then having to put it down to keep up with the high flying debate.

Many thanks to tweeps @devinfoster @timahrensbach @SteveBomford and @00alice all of whom were prolific during the debate producing a constant feed picking up some of the definitional debate, and questions we all posed about the real nature and value of Corporate Social Responsibility which to my knowledge is going through some radical changes.  

The other speakers were my old colleague Jim Brown, the Venerable Bede of the co-operative and social enterprise movements, Simon Willis md of the on-line platform for consumers, Purpose Europe Edit, Jas Bains ceo at the Birmingham housing association, Accord, Dominic Campbell of FutureGov and last but by no means least the very game Jonty Ollif Cooper who is Director of Policy and Strategy at A4e.

Given the large number of speakers I relaxed too soon thinking I could enjoy listening to the debate and chip in when I was good and ready. Imagine my consternation when Indy framed the debate by saying the topic came out of a discussion he had with me which got him thinking and inspired him to set up the panel to tease out those things he and I had talked about together in a coffee shop on the Strand a few months earlier.

Frantically I tried to remember what exactly it was we had talked about, which if memory served was my rationale for setting up the Transition Institute, in that without study, understanding and emphasis the social value of public services will be lost as new providers enter the market and such a place of study needed to be independent of preconceived ideas of the inherent virtue of any given governance model. Social was not found in only in ownership but impact, essentially.

Still when Jonty said he had never heard a discussion about social value that he didn’t think was wooly I wasn’t surprised. Why would an organisation that described itself as a social business by virtue of providing services to the unemployed be interested in social value analysis? By the same token the pilloried G4S could call itself a social business because it works with offenders or Thames Water could do the same because water is an essential service and human right? So cutting straight to the heart of the matter, what make a social business social?

To be honest, as much as I enjoyed the debate I am not sure how far we got with that one. There was some discussion around governance models with Dominic looking forward to the rise of social enterprise within increasingly outsourced public services and Jim declaring that social enterprise is a concluding Blairite project that has run its course.  I felt sad when he said that and I worried that I had egged him on to do so by saying that the definitional debate in social enterprise has been so much hot air. I thought about all those places in the world I had worked in like South Korea where social enterprise is better known and forms more a part of the vocabulary of the public sector than it does in the UK. I wonder if they put Korean social enterprise down to Tony Blair or indeed thought their movement had reached its high water mark?

My highlight was when Jim said that what we needed to do was introduce more love into the workplace. What we needed was to build the concept of love and focus on creating jobs where people would not only feel valued but could express their feelings of self-worth and mutual understanding. It got Jim a well deserved round of applause and was a courageous thing to say. I have always believed and said that everyone wants to do a good job, we just need to help people make that connection and Jim’s starting point of asking about love seemed as good a place to start as any.

Listening to Jonty I quickly realised how frank his analysis of A4e was and how committed he was not only to the organisation but also to helping them think through how they could bring substance to the assertion that they are a social business. I am not in the least bit threatened by that claim, it shows intent and if that is backed up by action that has to be a good thing.

In the meantime the Transition Institute is working with public sector innovators to distill the alchemy of social value, give it substance for commissioners and create public awareness through examples of best practice. Long live the debate on social but we must get the public involved as only service consumers know what social means to them. 

Putting out the bunting

Patriotic planting

To celebrate the royal wedding, I have put together some red, white and blue tubs and organised the mobile parts of my garden into shades of red to compliment my established blue Agapanthus and white rose bedding around the patio.

Yup, road trips are fun

Its a long drive from London to the Costa Brava and back again, but it can be fun, and time to reflect, if you like that sort of thing. I used to drive over a thousand miles each and every week in my job as a union organiser in the US and Hubby just loves driving his car, aka The Beast. The kids seem to be enjoying it too, playing DS download and munching on assorted snacks. We have all remarked on the spectacular scenery through the Pyrennes and french countryside.On the way down we stopped over with friends who live in a really pretty village called Alan, just outside Toulouse which was perfect. Today we are doing the 500 miles to Orleans. Thanks to the wonders of technology I have located a nice hotel, with good reviews and reserved a room big enough for all of us, just outside Orleans. I have even managed to clear my Monday in tray (don't tell the kids, I promised to stop working this holiday) and updated the kids pescription requests. I have also been able to widen my blog list, catch up on the gossip about Vince Cable, rumoured to be thinking of running for Mayor and Tony Blair's flake. It's all quite relaxing really, even inspite of the boys bickering and Katie's car sickness getting the better of her every now and again. Funny thing is, you'd expect the kids would hate it, but they were really looking forward to getting on the road this morning. To keep things light as hubby likes to say, we have a few house rules, the driver chooses cabin temperature and music and will stop if anyone wants to for whatever reason. In that vein we have bought some terracotta dishes, seen a castle and aquaduct and even done some laundry!

We will definitely do this again next year, anyway we have to as we all kissed the butt of La Lleona (The Lioness) in Gerona, which guarantees you will return (see photo below). To be honest, I'll be a little sad when we get home and all go our seperate ways into busy lives, this lot are a laugh. I feel some life changes coming on, I need to work out how to do the things I love doing, like droning on about social enterprise, and, as they say in political circles, spend more time with my family.