Dear Jude
Thanks for taking the time to answer my query. I don't know a lot about
SROI either,
but Demos have produced a good summary -
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/measuring-social-value.
From what I understand, the main impetus for monetizing 'soft' values - eg
social
& environmental- has been the outsourcing of state provision for public
well-fare
to third sector organizations. This means that, whatever values are
monetized through
SROI , must still make sense within the current paradigm of economic
growth.
And I worry that this is not going to go far enough to <snip>...make a case
for fixing a high price to *real* goods....<snip>
Do you know Chandran Nair ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZjZw2BeG0
He has hard things to say about this, accusing politicians and business
leaders of
intellectual dishonesty for not confronting the reality that the Western
model
of consumption-led economic growth can never be replicated in Asia. That
the 5
billion population of Asia in 50 years will not all be able to live like
Americans - there simply isn't enough to go round. He says we have
underpriced
everything *real* and must re-price everything that nature supplies (air,
water...). We must also switch our current model of production by using as
few
resources as possible and as many people as possibleŠ
I wonder how *styles* could work in this new paradigm of constrained
consumption?
Just a few more rambling thoughts
Best wishes
Amanda
On 14/03/12 7:35 PM, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Dear Amanda
>
>I'm new to SROI but having googled it, it looks very interesting and I'm
>keen to find out more about how a social value is given a financial
>figure etc. I'll have to find out more. It is however very timely that
>you've mentioned this because recently we've been debating the idea of
>giving monetary awards to students who display excellent moral character.
>Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations aside, the question is how one moves
>from one type of value to another type. The idea that price is a proxy
>for (social) *preferences* brings to mind Carl Menger, and the Austrian
>tradition in economics. Perhaps one interesting question is whether
>these things which we value are mere preferences, or truly valuable even
>if no one prefers these. It may be the case that, some social effect may
>be much preferred, and could be priced quite highly if we have this
>Mengerian subjective theory of value, but may not, objectively speaking
>be truly that valuable. Conversely some social goods may be priced very
>low because not too many people like it, even though more *should*. But
>all of this depends on how prices are given or allocated to these social
>values. I don't know enough but are these prices awarded based on how
>much these social goods are wanted, desired, preferred? The subjective
>theory of valuation ala Menger explains well why water is cheap (they are
>in abundance, so there's no great desire for them), and why diamonds are
>so costly (they are rare, or we've been told they are our best friends,
>so we desire them very much), but need not, arguably, be a prescriptive
>principle, and in this regard I'm inclined, against Menger, towards price
>"fixing". So how do we get the prices we have for these social goods?
>That's I think an interesting question. If we get rid of the subjective
>theory of values, then how else do we allocate the price figure? Do real
>goods, central to human flourishing, deserve higher prices than other
>frivolous whims which the majority prefer? Should they not? And can we
>exploit that as an incentive? Ok I'm beginning to see its potential.
>With SROI we can all talk money and the countable, which is great, but
>the battle is to make a case for fixing a high price to *real* goods.
>The other thing is perhaps also to develop a strong case for what one
>thinks are real goods. Also suppose we successfully monetize the variety
>of goods, when doing cost benefit analysis, can it be possible for us to
>disregard some goods in order to maximize our net gain, or to always make
>(quite successfully) the case that a certain good, although monetized,
>should be systematically disregarded precisely because it "cashes in
>less"? Whereas when the goods are not monetized, any such argument
>cannot be made because that particular good is unique and cannot be
>replaced even if we had more of another? The tendency I see here is that
>it has the potential to lead to an apparent "one right answer" in policy
>and decision making. But the attraction of not monetizing the goods is
>that, because we cannot compute for the right answer, we are left with a
>host of possibilities, neither of which seems the best or most right--a
>nightmare for policy makers and advocates, but perhaps for designer a
>basis for 'style'? Simon, I think, was quite delighted with 'style' and
>thought this ideas warranted such a thing. Sorry, I'm rambling, and I
>must confess that I don't know SROI well enough, but now I think I have
>another theoretical paradigm through which to understand some of the
>ongoing debates at this end. Many thanks
>Jude
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill,
>Amanda
>Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 11:04 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Change of Paradigm for Design
>
>Dear Jude
>
>I cannot say I fully understand your vision of thomistic designerly
>knowing, perhaps because it is so well clothed in the masculine pronoun.
>I would be interested though, in knowing your opinion of the many
>attempts to measure social value, as in the "Social Return on Investment"
>model which seems currently favoured in after-neoliberal policy making?
>
>Amanda
>
>Institute of Design for Industry and Environment College of Creative Arts
>Massey University, Wellington New Zealand
>
>+64 4 8015799 ex 62555
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>On 13/03/12 2:57 PM, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>snip
>>One here needs to connect up with work in ethics and welfare economics...
>
>>I think it would be very interesting to explore and develop the kind of
>>designerly knowing that would be thomistic, and which sees creative
>>designing as fully infused and guided by ethical precepts and ideals,
>>and precisely as a kind of participation of the transcendent. Here man
>>realizes, through his designing work, not only that work which he
>>designs transitively, but his own value qua imago dei.
>>
>>In other words design needs to be fully involved in this discussion,
>>but it must I feel, find the right allies.
>>
>>Jude
>National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
>
>DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any
>attachments, may contain confidential information.
>This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.
>Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
>use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If
>you have received this email by fault, please
>notify the sender and delete it immediately.
|