In the first of our introductions to the new programmes, Dr Lynne Duncan and Dr Sarah McGeown tell us a little more about ‘Conversations about language and literacy: promoting equity and attainment through engagement’.
Building on discussions from the May event—which focused on cultural and social perspectives of stigma in childhood—the second seminar for the Stigma in Childhood project sought to explore theoretical and practical approaches to stigma as it is experienced by children and young people. It brought together a range of speakers and participants, including international academics; representatives from organisations such as Who Cares? Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council, and the Fostering Network; and care experienced young people themselves. The event demonstrated the value of a multifaceted, collaborative approach to the issues surrounding stigma in childhood.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals lay out a coherent road map – widely embraced by the business community – for building a just and sustainable world. We have the technology and the brains to address our environmental problems, and we have the resources to reduce inequality. The question is not what should be done the question is how. – Rebecca Nicholson
One of the most popular courses at Harvard Business School is ‘Reimagining Capitalism’. Course leader, Rebecca Nicholson (author of a recent book on the subject from which the above quote is taken) is hopeful that Covid-19 could be a catalyst for reimagining a more inclusive and sustainable form of capitalism. In a recent talk for Ceres she argues that it could provide the jolt needed to the inertia of business as usual, by providing a stark warning that bad things can happen quickly and without much warning, while also reminding us of how much we depend on each other for our security and survival.
This view is echoed in the forward of the recently published report of the Scottish Government’s Advisory Group on Economic Recovery: “If the monumental scale and nature of this economic shock is not a catalyst to accelerate change and to find new bold, radical interventions that will transform Scotland’s economy, then nothing ever will be. We must be willing to revisit old demarcation lines without bias, and to discover new methods and levels of collaboration as we navigate our path of rehabilitation, recovery, and re-imagination.”
Scotland’s Auditor General has also highlighted the opportunity presented by current circumstances:
It feels as though this may be one of those rare times, like the creation of the welfare state after the Second World War, when major change suddenly becomes possible; our challenge is how to make the most of the current moment.
Nicholson argues that free market capitalism has been the greatest source of prosperity the world has ever seen, but that it is on the verge of destroying the planet and destabilizing society. She sees three broad problems, which are linked and have intensified over the past forty years that have diminished capitalism as a force for good:
- externalities, like the true cost of carbon, not being fully priced into market decisions
- the growing exclusion of large sections of society, partly due to not having the right skills to provide freedom of opportunity and an inequitable distribution of rewards
- firms using lobbying and other forms of influence to fix the rules of the game for their benefit, to allow them to extract economic wealth, over the wider needs of society
She thinks business has a catalytic role to play, alongside others, in stimulating a re-imagination of capitalism to make it more purpose driven to make outcomes fairer and more sustainable and address these issues*. She recognises, however, that markets alone can’t achieve the required outcomes without the right institutions to provide the legal and regulatory frameworks, within which markets can operate fairly, alongside the necessary investment in public goods.
Action by individual companies can be an important starting point, demonstrating that it is possible to run a business in a way which respects the environment and benefits society at large while still making money**. Co-operation between companies across industries will be critical to scale up the impact, for example in setting supply chain standards and isolating free riders. Finance will also have an vital role to play in investing in firms that are acting sustainably, in part because there is increasing recognition that in the long run it will be impossible to diversify away from some risks, such as those associated with climate change***.
Reform will also needed to ensure the right institutional environment. Nicholson identifies the importance of a more participatory democracy and the need to reduce the ability of those with deeper pockets to purchase influence. She senses a growing recognition among far sighted businesses of the need for change in the political environment in which business operates.
It’s sometimes hard to be optimistic given the short term stresses and strains of coping with the immediate health and economic impacts of the Covid pandemic. However, the recovery phase offers opportunities for improvement driven by innovation, investment and increased resource productivity.
The pandemic has caused massive disruption to demand patterns and supply chains (some temporary, others more structural) and has demonstrated that interventions that months ago were unthinkable are possible. So there are reasons to be hopeful that purposeful businesses working alongside the public sector, third sector and academia can build a fairer, healthier and more sustainable society – but they can’t be taken for granted.
*A number of business have already indicated that this is a direction of travel they intend to pursue https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans
**This ties in with Peter Lacy’s argument that firms can adopt circular economy approaches and prosper https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137530684. Alex Edmans reaches similar conclusions about profit and social value https://www.growthepie.net
***There are indications that the attitudes of investors and central banks are beginning to change https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter
To what extent should economic indicators be used to measure how well an economy is doing? While this might seem a rather strange question, it could be argued that this only makes sense if the economy is the end in itself. If on the other hand the economy is seen as a means to an end than it is arguable that other ‘end’ outcomes should be used to measure progress.
If the overall objective is sustainable wellbeing, then a focus on wider social and environmental measures may give a better indication of how well the economy is contributing to this. A clearer idea of social and environmental progress, relative to economic indicators, may then allow you to look at how different approaches to organising an economy work in terms of achieving desired ends.
This is the approach the Social Progress Imperative have taken in developing their index of social progress, which they see as a practical tool to track and report progress towards the UN’s SDGs. They don’t use any purely economic measures in constructing the index. Instead they look at 51 indicators across three broad categories: basic human needs, the foundations of wellbeing (including environmental quality) and opportunity.
The top ten performers are Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and Japan. All high income countries but not necessarily the ones with highest economic output per head.
At low levels of income there appears to be a strong relationship between social progress and income but as income increases this relationship appears to weaken (see graph chart below from the SPI’s latest annual report). This relationship between income and wider wellbeing (measured either subjectively or objectively) has been widely commented on (often termed the Easterlin Paradox) after it was first highlighted in the ‘70’s.
A decent level of income would therefore appear to be a necessary condition for wellbeing but not a sufficient one.
A related question concerns the degree to which there is an often assumed trade-off between strong economic performance and wellbeing, sometimes referred to as efficiency v equity? This need not be the case, indeed there could be a strong synergy between the two, for example, secure employment, where employees having a stake in the success of the employer, may help boost innovation and productivity at both the level of the company and the wider economy. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson have argued this type of relationship is at the heart of economic development processes and distinguish between the long term performance of ‘inclusive’ and ‘extractive’ economies. While the IMF have highlighted that too much inequality can also damage economic performance.
Understanding the connections within complex socio-economic systems (both positive synergies and negative trade-offs) is vital to the design and implementation of policy and practice. There is growing interest in looking at links between the SDGs and the processes that help make the connections∗. One such process could be the supply chains of goods and services, which, for example, could bring together:
- The use of natural resources and the disposal of waste (SDGs 12, 14, 15)
- The skills and conditions of workers throughout the chain (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10)
- Production and distribution processes (SDGs 7, 9, 12, 13)
- Reuse and recycling of products (SDGs 11, 13, 14, 15)
- Trading arrangements (SDGs 16, 17)
- Supply chain resilience (SDGs 3, 9)
The more action can be geared towards promoting the synergies between the SDGs, while being alive the potential trade-offs, the more effective and efficient it is likely to be. Hence the current SUII call for proposals aimed at integrating the SDGs to accelerate progress.
∗This was highlighted in a recent Bond SDG Network webinar looking at new evidence on SDG synergies and trade-offs by Joseph Alcamo, Director of the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme
“It is the greatest test that we have faced since the formation of the United Nations, one that requires all actors -governments, academia, businesses, employers and workers’ organizations, civil society organizations, communities and individuals- to act in solidarity in new, creative, and deliberate ways for the common good” – “Shared responsibility, global solidarity” – United Nations March 2020
While most attention is currently focussed on the short term challenges of getting to grips with the Covid-19 pandemic, it may also be helpful to think about this in the context of the longer term objectives of Agenda 2030 as set out in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. As the chart below (from the UN’s recent report on the socio-economic impacts of Covid-19 quoted above) shows, all of the goals will be impacted in some way by the disease and the response to it. Making significant progress on the goals will also enable humanity to be better able to cope with similar challenges in the future.
The report looks at the impact on the goals and also considers how best to respond to the crisis in ways which will support the goals. Recommendations include: significant economic stimulus measures (aimed in particular at poorer countries and those most vulnerable), resisting protectionist temptations and protecting connectivity, supporting businesses (in particular SMEs), making supply chains more resilient, protecting human rights, supporting decent work and education and prioritizing social cohesion.
The report emphasises the importance of partnerships at all levels (in different places, within and between countries, between research organisations, between public, private and third sectors) in responding to the short term crisis and the longer term implications. Indeed there may be ways of working more collaboratively and with greater solidarity, to respond to the pandemic, that stand us in good stead for the longer term. It will certainly help highlight shared interests and priorities.
The world will not feel the same or be the same after the crisis. We will face the choice of trying to turn the clock back or to go for something better to make us less vulnerable in the future. The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs provide the framework for building a better future.
In this guest blog, Dr Steve Kirkwood provides advice from his experience of being a programme lead on one of our Knowledge Exchange programmes. Steve is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Edinburgh.
I was the joint lead on a Scottish Universities Insight Institute (SUII)-funded programme in 2017 entitled ‘Developing Restorative Justice in Scotland’. In case you’re not aware, restorative justice is a process for facilitating safe communication between the direct victim of a crime and the person who committed a crime. It is well used in various parts of the world, and the evidence for its effectiveness is relatively strong, however it is little used in Scotland. The purpose of our programme was to explore and share the international evidence on restorative justice with policy makers, practitioners and academics in the Scottish criminal justice scene, with the hope of informing local policy and practice.
Last autumn we released our second call for proposals of 2018, on the theme of “Cooperation and Interdependence”. We are delighted to announce that we have funded new knowledge exchange programmes from this round of applications. These programmes include experts from across the disciplinary spectrum; among them clinical practice, disability studies, education, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, politics, product design, psychology, public health, sociology, sport and exercise, and translation studies.
We are about to embark on the decision making process for our next themed call around the broad topic of interdependence and cooperation. Applications close on 23rd November and following our Programme Committee meeting in December the projects selected will run for the first nine months or so of 2019. With this in mind, it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the projects that were part of our last themed programme carried out in 2018, which was in support of Scotland’s Futures Forum’s work on Scotland in 2030. Continue reading “Joining the Dots in 2030 – Charlie Woods”
Basic Income, under various monikers, has attracted a growing level of global attention in recent years. At times referred to as Universal Basic Income or Citizen’s Basic Income, it represents an innovative approach to many pressing issues in contemporary society. In September 2017, the Scottish Government committed £250,000 to allow four local authorities to explore the feasibility of Basic Income pilots. In theory, a Basic Income would replace many current benefits and tax allowances with an unconditional, non-withdrawable payment to each citizen. This foundational income would not be means tested, allowing all to rely on a stable, partial income.
I recently attended a conference organised by ‘What Works Wellbeing’, which looked at the emerging evidence of what promotes wellbeing and quality of life for individuals and society more generally. The conference was organised around the themes of the What Works programme – work and learning, culture and sport, communities and cross cutting methods.
The idea behind a wellbeing focus is that it goes beyond narrow measures of economic output. Scotland’s National Performance Framework illustrated below is an excellent example of just such an approach.
Individual Freedom and the Common Good
In a recent fascinating article in the New York Times Colin Woodard summarises his analysis of how politics in America today is shaped by the values of the different groups that settled the country; from the Puritan communitarian legacy of the north east ‘Yankeedom’ to the personal sovereignty of ‘Greater Appalachia’. He identifies eleven different ‘nations’ or regions in the US that cross state boundaries and which, in his view, provide a much better guide to today’s political divisions that ‘north-south’ or ‘urban-rural’. At its heart he sees a tension between advancing and protecting individual liberty and promoting the common good.
“The future is collaborative” – Jackie Kay (Scots Makar)
Focusing on the theme of Cooperation and Interdependence, our second call for proposals of 2018 seeks to explore the challenges and opportunities presented by ever increasing interconnectedness. The call is now live, and further details can be found on the SUII website here.
Throughout September we’ll be running a series of informative workshops at our member institutions.
Capitalism in the age of robots
In April this year Adair Turner (Chair of the Institute for New Economic Thinking) gave a speech entitled “Capitalism in the age of robots: work, income and wealth in the 21st century.” In it Turner argued that the rapid and unstoppable development of automation—based on robotics, artificial intelligence and machine learning—will have profound implications for how we live and work over the next fifty to a hundred years.
New Programmes – 2018, Round 1
Following an impressive response to our most recent Call for Proposals, we are delighted to announce five new Knowledge Exchange programmes. These programmes include experts from across the disciplinary spectrum; from the fields of design innovation, digital art and technology, primary care research, visual literacy, trauma and memory studies, heath psychology, engineering, environment and climate change, social policy, social business, education, and sociology.
The Learning from Loss programme team have been hard at work, and their fieldtrip is finally here! From the 10th to the 21st of June participants will explore a range of issues relating to climate change impacts upon the historic environment through the lens of threatened coastal heritage and vulnerable carved stone monuments. We will learn from the diverse experiences of the participants and explore different situations and alternative approaches enriched with experiences from colleagues from the USA and insights from community heritage managers and stakeholders.
You can find the full Learning from Loss Programme Itinerary here.
The Housing and Ageing programme brings together academics, policy makers, service users and organisations delivering policy objectives in practice to exchange knowledge and design best practice.
Working together with Housing LIN, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (SFHA) and Age Scotland, the programme events focus on linking the strategic policy priorities of Housing and Ageing together with practice and service user experience. The first of three working group events took place on 1 May 2018 in Stirling, demonstrating innovative approaches (including a serious game) and generating lively discussion; in the room and on social media. The latter can be found below.
Continue reading “Housing and Ageing – Online Discussions from the First Working Group”
Held at the Lighthouse, this first seminar in the series focused on understanding the current research, policy and practice landscape of palliative care. This programme argues that there is a need to focus on positive and preferable destinations of care where the ethos and values of services provide a seamless transition for people with life limiting conditions, regardless of life stage.
SUII Director, Charlie Woods, discusses the continued attention being dedicated to conceptions of wellbeing in research, policy and practice.
SUII Director, Charlie Woods, discusses the continued attention being dedicated to conceptions of wellbeing in research, policy and practice.
It has been four years since our themed programme on wellbeing (summarised here), which looked at the insights from taking a wider wellbeing approach to public policy and practice. Over this period, there has been a steady increase in interest in promoting wellbeing as a policy objective. This note highlights a couple of recent examples.
The seminar series entitled ‘An international and intersectional dialogue on how to reduce harm and promote wellbeing amongst people who have housing, health and substance use challenges’ started on the 27th of November in the Scottish Universities Insight Institute premises in Glasgow. For any member of an organising committee, there is always a certain degree of nervousness on the first day of an event. However, this was one occasion where the atmosphere was relaxed and conducive to interesting conversations from the very beginning.
In the fourth of our introductions to the new programmes, Dr Tessa Parkes, Dr Hannah Carver, and Dr Fiona Cuthill provide a bit more detail on their new programme.
In the third of our introductions to the new programmes, Dr Grant Gibson provides a bit more detail on the programme he’s leading with Dr Diane Pennington – ‘Shifting Paradigms for Dementia’.
In the second of our introductions to the new programmes, Dr Paul Rigby and Dr Daniela Sime tell us a little more about ‘Separated and Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children in Scotland’.
Early in September we ran a series of information workshops on our most recent Call for Proposals: Scotland 2030.
As part of the roadshows we asked past project leaders to discuss the lessons they learned in designing and delivering projects. Their reflections were particularly useful, so we’ve compiled some of the most beneficial here to help prospective applicants in developing their proposals.
On Wednesday the 30th August 2017 I had the privilege of participating in several workshops and listening to great keynote speakers. The seminar was opened by Professor Andrew Kendrick (University of Strathclyde) who was brilliant welcoming us all to the event and going over the objectives for the day. As a care experienced member of staff within Who Cares? Scotland, I found the day very eventful and informative. It was just a shame there was so much going on but, due to time, I could only be participate in some of the workshops available.
Apparently, a picture is worth a thousand words. With this in mind, I was delighted to come across this cartoon (by artist G. Renee Guzlas) to start our presentation at this month’s roadshows around our member universities, to help illustrate what lies behind SUII projects.
On 26th June I ran a workshop for the second Stigma in Childhood event, at the Scottish Universities Insight Institute at Strathclyde. This was an excellent opportunity to share some of my research on self-harm and young people, and hear from others about their views and experiences of the topic.
Throughout September we’ll be running a series of informative workshops to coincide with our most recent call for proposals.
Focusing on the theme of Scotland 2030, this call is intended to complement and support Scotland’s Futures Forum’s current major programme of work. The call for proposals is now live, and further details can be found on the SUII website here.
The past two Stigma in Childhood project seminars have emphasised the importance of the experience and contribution of the children and young people who remain at the heart of the project. In particular, at the most recent event, Professor Pranee Liamputtong argued that research should be conducted with, as opposed to on, children and young people.