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
|