Well, no. It probably is however at least a nod t...

2010-04-15T19:07:39.763+01:00

Well, no. It probably is however at least a nod to the thinking you've encapsulated, and to Cameron's previous attempts at going beyond economic growth as a be all and end all.

You think it's a dog-whistle aimed at deep-gre...

2010-04-15T16:59:00.942+01:00

You think it's a dog-whistle aimed at deep-green policy wonks?

See, if that's what it does mean then I perfec...

2010-04-14T21:40:52.832+01:00

See, if that's what it does mean then I perfectly understand that: surely though another reason they've covered it in almost impenetrable jargon is that the idea of putting a measure of well-being as either equal to or close to GDP is anathema to the right of the party, although Cameron has mentioned general well-being before in his more happy, flaky moments.

Great post. I think you've nailed one of the p...

2010-04-14T11:21:22.563+01:00

Great post. I think you've nailed one of the problems around the 'big society' agenda - it's assumption that voluntary and community action can be divorced from political aims.

If you look at some of the most cited civic action groups of the last few years - the Citizen's Organising Foundation (which include London Citizens) and the Transition Towns movement they are both built around radical programmes of social change - addressing the root causes of problems, not just their symptoms. The Big Society seems inherently blind to the idea that some people or institutions (apart from the state) might be to blame for deprivation, environmental catastrophe or atomisation - possibly because the most likely culprits are their mates.

On a slightly different note, I think I can decode 'develop a measure of well-being that encapsulates the social value of state action.' It seems like there's a couple of different things going on there, which have gotten a bit confused though (this is going to get a bit wonkish now):

Wellbeing measurement is a concept that draws on the psychological work of Richard Layard and others and which tends to use survey tools to develop and measure very broad conception of 'quality of life' which include self-perceptions of mental and physical health, supportive relationships, sense of being in a functioning community and so on. A number of big deal academics (Stiglitz, Giddens) are calling on governments to use national wellbeing surveys as an alternative to GDP in measuring social progress, as they hope it can help government's to move away from growth-focussed economic and social policy (there's a good site on this at http://www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org.)

However, while wellbeing is an interesting high level indicator, actually isolating the impact of how X or Y policy impacts on Wellbeing is extremely difficult.

Another thing that this sentence seems to be referring to then, is a measure like Social Return on Investment. SROI is basically a way of trying to make cost benefit analysis into a not-stupid way of assessing government services which ought to make people's lives better. SROI works by examining the experiences of people using a service, finding out from them what 'social value' it has provided them (as opposed to financial benefits) and then trying to find 'proxy' financial measures for those non-monetary gains which can be included in the cost benefit analysis (See here for more: http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/social-return-investment). Because it captures non-monetary benefits, SROI tends to promote a more humane, supportive approach to public services which are an antidote to brutal efficiency oriented approaches , so it's probably (in my view) a good thing, despite having a somewhat awkward methodology. But it's a very different thing to Wellbeing - it tries to fix problems with existing cost-benefit analysis, not

But wait, there's more! The problem with that bloody sentence is that it's throwing around terms like well-being and social value without really thinking about what they mean. There's a real tension between seeking to measure well-being - which is primarily about the intangibles - and any kind of value-based measure. Well-being is by its very nature, holistic, difficult to attribute and impossible to assess on monetary scale. To suggest that we can stimulate social action by measuring (and then presumably generating targets or incentives for) wellbeing impact is so reductive as to be basically meaningless.

This is a classic example of how radical ideas end up getting stripped of their ideological baggage and end up being the latest flavour of business as usual. Measuring wellbeing offers a powerful alternative to the way we think about progress and about the purpose of our economic and social institutions. It's not something you can slap on to existing institutions to make them all fluffy and social.

Comments on Obsolete: The Conservative manifesto.

Well, no. It probably is however at least a nod t...

You think it's a dog-whistle aimed at deep-gre...

See, if that's what it does mean then I perfec...

Great post. I think you've nailed one of the p...