Tim wrote:

Even if they are carrying out Govt. policy (and this
was a good point) they still have not been asked to do so

My point is that in regeneration partnerships community leaders have been
asked to turn up to partnership meetings.by the movers and shakers of the
partnership.and to represent the voluntary sector and/or the community. It's
not as if they volunteer, they are co-opted. (they sometimes hold elections
but there is no viable electorate and rarely any competition for the jobs) .
They are expected to participate, and they know that if they do not the
decisions will be taken over their heads.

On the general issue my view of the voluntary and community sector is
neither blue nor red.. I think the reality is that it is plural and complex,
in part entrepreneurial in part tending to dependency. I do believe
democracy and civil society is enhanced by widespread public participation
and I see the voluntary and community sector as a series of alternative
routes to involvement which avoid though sometimes overlap the political
parties. That I think is the real value of the voluntary sector as opposed
to its role as a service delivery mechanism.

In terms of service delivery I'm agnostic about it providing the service
delivered is effective and responsive to people's needs. When a voluntary
group gets a contract which allows it to employ people to deliver services I
question whether we should call it voluntary sector. I would rather call it
not for profit. The issue then is whether it adds volunteer labour to paid
labour and for both types of staff how far it is exploitative. One way of
defining exploitation of course is classic red economics, around whether it
is an attempt to cut labour costs and beat down the market price of labour.

Greg Smith (Research Consultant)
Aston Mansfield CIU
Mayflower Centre
Vincent Street
London E16 1LZ

tel (44) 020 7 474 2255    email [log in to unmask]

web site www.astoncharities.org.uk/research
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:01 PM
Subject: Re:) The Voluntary Sector


> On the continuing debate:
>
> Apologies to Greg Smith- I believe my exercise in devils advocacy is at
> least in part responsible for your original point to become slightly
> obscured.  To make amends I propose to summarise the debate so far and see
> if we can't relate it to the points you raised.  I think it's time for
> another red corner/blue corner!
>
> For me the debate is revolving around the question of whether the space
the
> VS currently occupies is too large.  In the blue corner, represented by
> myself but rather better by Malcolm Todd stands the argument that the VS
is
> not all it's cracked up to be.  Significant failings that need to be
> addressed include enhancing legitimacy and reducing overlap and
> inefficiency by developing more joined-up practice.  In the red corner,
> represented by Linda, Greg and Andy are those that feel the VS occupies
the
> right amount of space and requires enhanced support, particularly from
> Govt. including more funding but also encouragement and the means for more
> public participation.
>
> Since I am in the blue corner, reds may feel free to amend and correct my
> understanding of their arguments.
>
> >From the messages and replies it would appear that a significant amount
of
> common ground exists between these two sides, no one it seems is totally
> against a mixed economy of development and provision.  Where the debate
> lies is in the balance and organisation of such a mix.
>
> This debate is more problematic since it has rightly been pointed out that
> as with so many sectors the VS is not monolithic but exists in a variety
of
> organisation, and provides a multitude of different services.  After
> several good chats to various people and my mum I am of the opinion that
it
> is the type of service offered that should regulate the extent to which it
> is provided voluntarily.  Hardly ground breaking I know but we formulated
> our definition as: the VS should not overlap any existing public services
> and should only fill spaces where the State either cannot provide a
service
> (for whatever reason) or has no mandate to provide such services.  Here we
> were thinking of the smaller, localised self help networks that step in
> where, ordinarily, family and friend networks suffice.  Our examples were
> dealing with disfigurement, grief and non-medical depression- essentially
> dealing with everyday life stresses.  Where overlap is found the resources
> of such voluntary organisations should be absorbed into the statutory
> institutions since it is in these situations that VS groups run the risk
of
> undermining public provision and further hollowing out.  The point here
for
> us was that the public sector does more than meet service needs, ie. they
> are more than just means but are in fact an end in themselves because of
> the legitimacy factor.  Anything that undermines this is potentially
> undesirable.
>
> I was interested more in the joining up of working and so I have not
talked
> so much about enhancing legitimacy.  One particular example of joined up
> working could be between groups such as the Samaritans and childline.
> Perhaps they could share a central call centre fielding calls nationally
> and maintaining their 'brand image' including a detailed national database
> of local resources on the ground.  This could help to reduce both
operating
> and training costs since it would all be on one site.  Further it should
> not interfere with the services provided currently.  We also thought that
> charity and voluntary group 'mergers' would have similar effect as in the
> business sector, ie. providing greater efficiency by taking advantage of
> economies of scale and reducing overlap confusion in service users.  Key
> point here is to reduce the number of 'brand identities' regarding service
> provision.  Choice through 'competition' (even if such competition is not
> actively pursued) only results in enhanced choice but also confusion and
> thus lower trust.  Brand reduction would reduce confusion, inconsistency
> and should enhance levels of trust and need not necessarily be at the
> expense of choice.  Big business provides numerous examples of where
> mergers can sometimes increase choice.
>
> On to some loose ends now: In his last message Malcolm talks about the
myth
> that somehow lower money equals more/better quality work and how
> unimpressed doctors were likely to be regarding this point.  Linda gave us
> a clue on the reverse of this when she said "when you pay peanuts you get
> monkeys".  I would suggest that the only thing we would get from throwing
> even more money at the VS would still be monkeys (albeit rather well
heeled
> monkeys).  There seems to be a contradiction here for the red corner if it
> is true that the lower pay they receive makes them more conscientious.  If
> it is not true then everything the blue corner says about legitimacy needs
> to be seriously looked at.
>
> Rosemary could not understand how something could provide real benefit and
> be inefficient all at the same time- all I can say here is think about it
> for a while.  It is perfectly possible for this to be the case, point
there
> was that with some reorganisation real benefits could be expanded to
> include better benefits to more people.  I would dearly love to respond
> more to some of Rosemary's points but I have gone on a bit so I'll just a
> quick:
> (these correspond to Rosemary's points)
> A) our democracy is flawed and no one claimed anything else but still
> better than the alternative ie. pie in the sky communitarian dreaming
> (ooohh that was bit bitchy).
> B) I agree with this up until the assertion that the VS is "the most
> likely" way to reduce democratic deficit.  Community groups maybe but
these
> are very different from VS groups.
> C) I fundamentally disagree, of course there is space.  Under this
> conception the resources of both Govt. and the VS are inefficiently used
> since they remain separate.  The objective must be to establish consensus
> between the objects of the public and voluntary, remember that one is
> democratically accountable while the other is not.  That is the whole
point
> of working from within Govt..  The idea that there are some types of
> disadvantage that the state cannot act on or provide benefit to maybe true
> now (although I can't think of any) but normatively speaking is total
> rubbish.  What prevents any UK Govt. doing anything it likes concerning
any
> situation except a general election every four years.
> D) the concept of choice is far more slippery than you would have us
> believe.  There are many kinds of 'choice' and further in these postmodern
> times, choice can prove problematic when there is too much (see above).
> However the main thing with choice is that it must be a free choice- if a
> VS group takes cash from taxpayers it must surely be held as accountable
as
> if it were part of the Govt.- that is not currently the case.  Quango's
are
> at arms length accountability but then so is the whole VS when compared to
> Govt. departments.
> E) once again attempts to elude the key point here look like a blag (see
> current English slang) by an interested party.  Its not about what the
> volunteer does to who and for what etc.  The point is that people
volunteer
> of their own free will and thus should not receive taxpayers cash on the
> basis of any right.  Even if they are carrying out Govt. policy (and this
> was a good point) they still have not been asked to do so.  Only when a VS
> group is specifically contracted by Govt. for a particular task should
cash
> be made available.  Lastly my 'normal' comment is being taken out of
> context.
>
> Anyway thanks for people's time again- lets keep this going a little
longer
> and lets have some fresh contributions (I may be beginning to stink again
> for some people).
> Tim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 25/01/2001