By Linda Jackson, associate fellow at OPM.
The second anniversary of David Cameron’s Big Society has given commentators, supporters and critics alike the opportunity to reflect on the extent to which the policy has been put into practice.
The concept has often felt more of a riddle than a policy, so it’s probably unsurprising that critics have been quick to lead with some fairly damning analysis. The conclusion of one report is not just that Big Society has failed in what it set out to do, but also that it has made things worse; that the policy works for ‘leafy suburbs’ but further disenfranchises areas with fewer resources leading a widened social gap between rich and poor.
Reading this didn’t come as a particular surprise – I’d co-written a paper in 2010 about the need to tailor support to different communities to prevent further inequality – but I think it’s a little more complicated that some suggest.
In many ways the criticism feels easy and intuitive, especially considering the broader impact of debilitating cuts to voluntary sector funding which have fuelled critics to argue that the Big Society is merely a smokescreen for cuts.
But the agenda’s central themes – of social action and volunteering for example – are hugely important to civic society. Intuitively again, few could argue against policy which aims to support more individuals taking greater control over their lives and the services they access. And yet, this policy more than any other, seems particularly vulnerable to attack – and particularly so in the current financial context.
So is the problem with Big Society that it’s become too politicised? And/or that it hasn’t been given enough time? Continue reading







