When the Chancellor holds up his famous red box to the
cameras at budget day, one should wonder if his box is the right colour. Red
might signal the authority and pomp of Government, but budgets are increasingly
more black box affairs. In black box
theory, the inner components and logic of the system are opaque and not open to
inspection, while the stimulus and anticipated response are clear –
depressingly so in George Osborne’s
case, when it comes to the future for many young people in this country. Commentators and politicians will poor over
the economic inputs and expected social outcomes of the current budget, but it’s
the black box of systems thinking that arguably needs more attention now. What is the world we are trying to create? What
are the best methods to shape the future? Who is trying to answer the right
questions? Where is the debate between
generations and classes of wealth on how we can all prosper?
Ironically enough, it was Margaret Thatcher who was most transparent
about the purpose of a budget in its 18th century connotation as ‘showing
what you’ve got’ and ‘speaking one’s mind’.
In a much quoted interview with Ronald
Butt in the Sunday Times, 1981, Thatcher opened up the black box within the
Government’s confrontational approach to the economy:
‘What's irritated me about the whole direction of
politics in the last 30 years is that it's always been towards the collectivist
society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: do I
count, do I matter? To which the short answer is, yes. And therefore, it isn't
that I set out on economic policies; it's that I set out really to change the
approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If
you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation.
Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.’
All these years later, we seem to be struggling with the reverse
challenge – arguably a direct result from Thatcher - of how to create cohesive
communities in the context of ‘austerity thinking’, inequality, and the
economics of greed. The challenge of our
age is how to harness the potential of all our resources – our people, our
wealth, our environment – using instruments and institutions which appear ill
suited to the task of social equality. Just
as Thatcher saw we need to change our approach, so we need to change our economics
as one means of changing that approach.
Whatever we think about the current budget, it is, in its
own way, actively using the levers of economic policy to bring about social changes,
whether we agree with them or not. (And
there is a lot to disagree with). What concerns me is whether, in response, the
charity and philanthropic sector is as active in using the levers at its
disposal to ‘change the heart and soul’ of the nation. I have a horrible feeling the impact of this
particular budget will be felt in more posters on the tube, more letters in the
mail, more phone calls and more people in charity branded outfits trying to tax
our consciences. It’s not just our
consciences that need engaging – it’s the heart and soul of our thinking about advantage and disadvantage.
The problem with the current approach of ‘brand charity’ is
that there can sometimes appear to be little method to it beyond its own
survival –the economics of asking for more funds to support the sustainability
of more things in danger of collapsing; the need to replicate itself as the
only possible answer; and the need for theories of change to validate its complex
existence. It is Forth Bridge thinking –
a bridge that, until 2011, needed repainting as soon as it was finished. Where is the method to make the breakthrough
in our social system? Is there a charity
budget of ideas to redistribute hope and collaboration? Has someone produced a theory of change for a
better life for all of us?
In the case of the Forth Bridge, finding the method meant
inventing a new type of glass flake epoxy paint that could encase the bridge with
25 years of security, removing the need for its annual refurb. Conversely, it could be argued that most charities
are still operating with funding paints that only sustain in 3 year cycles, and
thus need teams of fundraisers to constantly find new replication sources. But
the analogy with the Forth Bridge is not about comparing the bridge with a
charity; it’s about comparing the bridge with the purpose of charity. What
is inside the black box of charities with large brands and fundraising campaigns
to eradicate the social ills they tax our consciences about? I don’t want to know that 20p could give
someone a roof for a night; I want to know the truth of how we can tackle
issues of social equality in ways that don’t necessitate the need for more ‘disadvantaged
thinking’ as I helped call it at Foyer Federation.
Which takes me back to the budget question: whether a box can contain a method to change the
heart and soul of how things work. The
answer is yes. Those who attended my Performance
of Ideas at The Cockpit theatre last year will have heard the story of Thomas
Clarkson. In the 18th century, Clarkson travelled around England
with a box promoting the talents of those sold as slaves in order to persuade
people to see them as human beings that could be invested in for their abilities
rather traded as bodies for goods. It
was a charity campaign with a method, changing hearts and minds, and – at the
time at least – it led to the abolishment of the British slave trade in 1807.
Why not, then, build a box for radical ideas? Not a charity box for small change, but a
charity box that asks for big change, co-investing people’s shared talents, thinking
and action as the method for a better world. The type of charity that does not employ innovators to fundraise more
cleverly, but uses innovation to change the challenges we face. A model for charity that runs the best
marathon of all: the race for real solutions.
After 14 great years at Foyer Federation, I’m setting up my
own little venture at InspireChilli, offering the ingredients of innovation consultancy
and innovation products to more people and organisations who want to do good in
the world. I am also building a box at
InspireChilli – virtual and physical - called ‘Alms for Ideas’. Unlike a charity box, it is not asking for
money. Unlike the chancellor, it is not 'doing to others'. Alms for Ideas is a box offering money and love (the original root meaning of charity) in
return for authentic ideas from people who have life experiences to shape innovation. What makes an idea ‘authentic’ is its ability to offer
methods to reach the heart and soul of a world where we can use all our talents
for good. It’s a small box, using my
personal savings and resources, but I’m hopeful that those charities and philanthropists and
entrepreneurs with bigger chests and brains than mine might be inspired by the example
to open up their twin budgets of money and ideas to do something better. In the face of the Government’s red box, and recent headlines about charities with black box accountancy, the sector must show
that we’ve truly got something to give.
InspireChilli and its
‘alms for ideas’ open for business from 1st October.
