The Neoliberal Phoenix: The Big Society or Business as Usual

Abstract

At present something curious appears to be occurring in the UK in the aftermath of the ‘credit crunch’, with respect to the political, economic and social complexion of the policies currently being implemented by the Coalition government, and not least in terms of the manner in which they are being introduced. Specifically, as this paper argues, despite a degree of rhetoric to the contrary, asserting a movement towards a more socially ‘progressive’ and inclusive ‘Big Society’, the current policy framework appears quite clearly to have been framed from a radical neoliberal perspective, to the extent that much of what is being implemented and proposed bears more than a passing resemblance to the neoliberal Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank on developing economies since the 1970s. This paper suggests that the implementation of the Big Society agenda - while seeming earnestly advocated by its presumed architect Philip Blond (whose Red Toryism has been cited as providing the intellectual foundation for the project, much as Giddens’ Third Way informed ‘Blairism’) - may have implications that are largely oppositional to its asserted aims. Such initiatives can be considered, in their application at least, as potentially legitimating discourses for the advancing of neoliberal policies against the background of an increasingly uneasy populace. In this vein, the Big Society, as the latest variant of such socio-economic visions, can easily be construed as being little more than a convenient vehicle, employed to rehabilitate and further entrench neoliberalism in the aftermath of its self induced crisis. This view is supported by the observation that a key feature of the Big Society agenda, in practice, appears to be the increasing marketisation of the public realm and, crucially, dismantling the ‘Big (Welfare) State’, where the latter, in almost Orwellian fashion, is now being indicted for many of the social and economic ills that the ‘free market’ era has delivered.

Recognising children's citizenship in the youth justice system

“…For Bone (2012), the Big Society represents less a call for people to build a stronger society and more of a charter for government to abdicate from its responsibilities to support and defend its citizens. Thus Bone is echoing Clarke's analysis of citizenship under New Labour where he concluded that under New Labour activated law-abiding citizens were empowered with greater responsibility to eschew anti-social behaviour in order to promote harmony, as a requirement of citizenship, in exchange for increased abandonment as the state systematically divested itself of its responsibilities to safeguard citizens (Clarke 2005).…”

The rise and fall of the ‘nudge’ of minimum unit pricing: The continuity of neoliberalism in alcohol policy in England

“…It is suggested that the categorization of particular forms of drinking as problematic is shaped by a specific neoliberal ‘mentality of government’, which also circumscribes the publicly debated policy options. This is a notably different argument from that presented by Bone (2012), for example, who argues that the ‘Big Society’ risks being little more than a cover to rehabilitate neoliberalism in the wake of the financial crisis. In alcohol policy, to quote Bone, it can reasonably be said to be ‘business as usual’, without even the cover of ‘Big Society’ ideas.…”

Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people

“…By the time the PLINY intervention was being delivered it had become difficult to talk about voluntary work in the UK without reference to the 2010 government's Big Society policy, a stated objective of which is 'a society where people come together to solve problems and improve life for themselves and their communities'. 88 This policy has had its detractors in the academic literature with some seeing it as ineffective [89][90][91][92][93][94] and others going further, accusing it of providing rhetorical cover for an agenda of spending cuts, privatisation and regressive taxation that will increase inequality, [95][96][97][98] DISCUSSION NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk not least because small-scale voluntary sector organisations are thought to have been most seriously compromised by the deficit reduction programme. 99 Our study provides limited evidence that some individuals who might previously have volunteered are deterred by an association with a political agenda that they eschew, which adds to an ongoing debate about whether such policies are eroding confidence in the third sector.…”