Briefings

No room to wriggle

February 16, 2021

Any wriggle room has, by common consent of the climate scientists, finally disappeared if we are to meet the existential challenges facing us. Which is why National Planning Framework 4 is as important, perhaps more so, than the many other consultations doing the rounds which relate to Scotland's response to the climate emergency. NPF4 sets the big picture. It should be a statement of where this country is heading. But reading the position statement it feels like it’s trying to be all things to all people rather than highlighting the really tough decisions that will need to be taken.   

 

Author: Scottish Government

NPF4 – Position statement

Our Future Places

Our places will look and feel different in the future. A significant shift is required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045.

We cannot afford to compromise on climate change. If we are to meet our targets, some significant choices will have to be made. We will make these choices next year as we move towards a draft National Planning Framework 4 for public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny, but it is already clear that significant effort will be required. We will have to rebalance the planning system so that climate change is a guiding principle for all plans and decisions. We will need to focus our efforts on actively encouraging all developments that help to reduce emissions. This is not about restricting development. Our aim is to help stimulate the green economy by facilitating innovation, greener design and place-based solutions.

Key opportunities to achieve this, as set out in this Position Statement, include:

  1. Building 20 minute neighbourhoods. We can plan our homes together with everyday local infrastructure including schools, community centres, local shops and healthcare to significantly reduce the need to travel. This is not just about new buildings – we want to guide change in a way that also helps to transform our existing places.
  2. Introducing a stronger preference for reusing existing buildings before new development proceeds.
  3. Shifting future development away from greenfield land including by actively enabling the redevelopment of vacant and derelict land.
  4. Strengthening our support for development in town centres and restricting out-of-town retail and leisure to help us transition away from car-dependent developments towards those that enable walking, cycling, wheeling and public transport accessibility.
  5. Stimulating new models of low carbon living in our rural areas as well as our towns and cities, by facilitating further investment in digital infrastructure, building in more space for people to work remotely and creating community hubs.
  6. Expecting low and zero carbon design and energy efficiency, for example by actively encouraging much wider use of sustainable and recycled materials in new developments.
  7. Significantly strengthening our policies to secure low carbon heating solutions.
  8. Supporting renewable energy developments, including the re-powering and extension of existing wind farms, new and replacement grid infrastructure, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen networks.
  9. Harnessing the potential for rural development to act as a lever to facilitate woodland creation and expansion.
  10. Expanding green infrastructure, biodiversity and natural spaces to make our places greener, healthier and more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
  11. Restricting peat extraction and development on peatland, and facilitating restoration through permitted development rights.
  12. Removing the need for planning permission for active travel and electric vehicle charging points to ensure that we can roll-out new infrastructure widely and quickly.

 

Briefings

Where does the power lie

As a country we’re as guilty as the next in being dazzled by wealth and power - even though it can often be illusory and a source of regret further down the line. Think Trump and his golf courses. But in theory, our systems of planning, regulation and environmental protection are generally thought to be transparent, fair and democratically accountable to the will of the people. However, it seems that around the shores of Loch Lomond different rules apply. The interests of big business and powerful individuals hold sway in the face of massive and sustained local opposition.  

 

Author: Kevin McKenna, The Herald

LATER this year Glasgow will pull on its wellies and fasten up its rucksack as it prepares to host the annual UN Climate Change Conference, the most anointed gathering of green acolytes on the planet. It’s a sort of G7 summit with bicycle clips and I sincerely hope my city rises to the occasion with its customary brio. I’d hope that by then our collective carbon footprint will have reduced to a dinky size five at the very least.

On the conference website an assortment of shiny claims are made about how sustainable and green the UK is. Here’s one of them. “Our 25 Year Environment Plan includes direct action to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age: air quality, nature recovery and resource efficiency.”

This is a noble aim and something we can all get our teeth into; just maybe don’t labour the point with the Scottish Government and one of our leading environmental protection agencies, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. Between them, this pair are currently hanging a very large For Sale sign over Yon Bonnie Banks.

Along with another government agency, Scottish Enterprise, they have conceived a rather unique interpretation of what “air quality, nature recovery and resource efficiency” means in the area around Loch Lomond. All of them are currently assisting a Yorkshire-based leisure outfit called Flamingo Land finesse an application to build a sprawling holiday complex on the shores of the loch at Balloch.

The reason they’re all having to re-assess the parameters of this development is because nearly 60,000 people objected to the potential environmental damage to the loch-side. They were more than slightly alarmed at the prospect of 125 woodland lodges, a water park, a hotel and a host of similar accoutrements associated with the global tourism sector. Among their concerns are potential impact on protected wildlife and woodland; the catastrophic impact on traffic congestion and the annexation of public land by a private developer.

In response, the National Parks authority has constructed a prime model of managerialist double-speak to justify cheering on the development from the side-lines. Environmental assessments have been made and besides there will be jobs and with them the opportunity to stimulate the local economy. Such statements are replete with moonbeams and unicorns but not so much on actual detail. Will the jobs be sustainable and properly paid? How will they measure future growth? What do they class as acceptable in terms of the impact to native species of flora and fauna?

A suite of similar justifications have been offered in giving Sir Tom Hunter, one of the UK’s richest businessmen, the go-ahead for his proposed “International Leadership Centre” on the southern shore of Loch Lomond at the site of the Ross Priory. This had previously been called-in by the Scottish Government at the request of local communities concerned at the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

No problem for the Government and its agencies; they’ve simply moved the goalposts. Sir Tom’s development doesn’t need an EIA because it’s now been classed as an “urban development project” and thus circumvents the requirement for an EIA. If this continues to proceed unchallenged then every stretch of unspoilt beauty in Scotland must now be considered a development opportunity. Sir Tom’s leadership centre can now be built on the last undeveloped stretch of shoreline of Loch Lomond’s southern end and on its most outstanding site.

Not much blame can be attached to the billionaire philanthropist in all of this and nor is there any hint of a profit motive. Sir Tom seems to be passionate about the quality of leadership in the modern age. “Our vision,” he said, “is to create an iconic, world class leadership centre where the future of Scotland will be discussed, debated and ultimately decided.” Some might think this is the reason we spent half a billion quid building the Holyrood Parliament, but let’s not quibble; it all sounds peachy.

Nevertheless, many in the local communities do want to quibble. They are deeply concerned about the impact on the natural environment, including the fate of a family of ospreys and protected rock formations and are resentful at the absence of anything approaching meaningful public consultation. I’ve spoken to several in the local community, all of whom lamented the absence of any serious public engagement.

An Environmental Impact Assessment requires the planning authority to make comparative studies of alternative available sites. There are several of these, including the old youth hostel at Auchendennan and the vacant Balloch Castle. Indeed Auchendennan is in virtually walk-in condition and is on the market at £3.75 million. Is there any compelling reason why this was dismissed, particularly as Sir Tom has stated the project is separate from Ross Priory as a centre?

There were more than 70 objectors and the community of Aber around Ross Priory only has around 30-40 of a population. Thus, the objection was more widespread than in the immediate area. Does Sir Tom, even at this stage, plan to hold any consultation with the local communities?

When I asked the Hunter Foundation some questions about these I was directed to a letter by Sir Tom which appeared in The Herald six weeks ago. In this, he said: “After detailed consultation, including with the local community and significant and multiple studies – from wildlife habitats to the environment to light pollution – [we] amended our plans significantly to address concerns raised. The proposals have the support of Friends of Loch Lomond and received unilateral approval from the planning authority committee.”

So, if there are any other multi-millionaires out there who fancy a tidy slice of Scotland’s natural heritage for a project that bears their name the Scottish Government has just issued you all with a road-map through those pesky regulations. It’s all about low-hanging fruit and shifting paradigms.

Briefings

Civic and civil

February 2, 2021

For obvious reasons, the older one gets the more one is able to relate to past events -  often because of first hand experience of those same events. Which is one reason I’m enjoying a new feature in SENScot’s weekly SE Networks News - From The Archive. Buried deep in the 2008 files is a speech from Senscot’s founder, Laurence Demarco, which he gave at DTA Scotland’s annual conference in 2008. Focusing on the difference between civic and civil society, his challenge is as relevant today as it was back then - possibly more so. How independent from the state is our sector?

 

Author: Laurence Demarco, Senscot

I would like to begin by making a distinction between what is meant by civic society and civil society. The first – civic society – I take to mean – the ‘local state’ – where citizens participate in local health boards – schools – community councils – planning partnerships and all the other mechanisms ultimately under the direction of the state. All this is good stuff. Civil society – I take to mean voluntary action – undertaken by citizens not under the direction of any authority wielding the power of the state. This is the definition of voluntary action given by Lord Beveridge in his famous 1948 report of that name. Beveridge said that ”the vigor and abundance of voluntary action – undertaken by citizens not under the direction of any authority wielding the power of the state – is one of the distinguishing marks of a free society!!

I have offered this distinction between the civic realm of the state – and the civil realm of the citizen because I believe that government has the inbuilt tendency to poach our space – that there is a powerful lobby within the statutory sector which believes that anything organized in our communities outwith their control is potentially dodgy. It is important for us here today to consider whether a development trust operates in the civic realm of the state – or the independent realm of the citizen. Are we active partners in public sector programmes or are we independent `civil society` actors.

As our movement gathers momentum in the acquisition of land and assets – we can anticipate that this issue of independence will come under increasing scrutiny.

I’ve been a community worker since the late 1960s – over 40 years. For much of that time – real community development work has been discouraged in Scotland. Particularly in our cities – the style of government had been municipal – that is to say – state delivered services – with citizens expected to be passive – grateful – complaint. Sometimes – in some places like Edinburgh – there have been deliberate moves to discourage – every obstruct voluntary action. It`s also my opinion that the Community Development profession which I joined, turned its back on community and went to work for the state – but that`s another story.

I would like to say a few words today about Local People Leading – the campaign for strong and independent communities in Scotland. In LPL the DTA Scotland comes together with other community based associations like woodlands – transport – recycling – housing etc. LPL is not a new organization – more an alliance of organizations – who believe that within out communities – there is an enormous reservoir of locked up imagination and energy for good – which we want to release. The aim is to provide a platform for the community sector to get together and build a national movement for community empowerment. LPL has drafted a position statement – outlining the actions we consider necessary to make this happen. Copies of this are available in your conference pack.

During my time as a community worker – Scottish communities have engaged in all manner of what they call ‘partnerships’ – with local and central government. But Partnership is not a good word – because of the gross imbalance of power inherent in these arrangements, the role of the community is too often tokenistic. Unfortunately most of the communities which were on the index of deprivation in the 60s are still on it. Truth to tell – our attempts at regenerations have mostly failed. The programme I know most about is Wester Hailes, where I worked from 1976 to 1990 – 14 years.

For 10 years – from 1988 – 1998, it was one of four areas chosen for the Scottish Office New Life for Urban Scotland Partnership. This programme invested £120m in Wester Hailes – but it`s difficult to see today what was achieved. WH was chosen for this Partnership because it already had an effective community infrastructure centred around a locally run Representative Council. When the Partnership and its funding ended the community`s independent organization was fatally damaged. Before the partnership – the community was in the lead. Gradually govt. officials and consultants took over. Last month, there was a meeting to formally dissolve the WH Rep Council. £120m to make a community less empowered than it was in the first place.

That experience taught me the very important lesson – that top down regeneration doesn’t work. Unless the process engages local people – unless they take it on- it simply unravels when the suits all leave – and leave they will.

But what if that £120 million spent in Wester Hailes – or even one year of it – £12 million – had been used to endow a local Development Trust. The endowment not spent, but invested – and the annual interest used by the Trust to drive local development; to develop property for social and commercial use; to operate social enterprises where the market leaves gaps; to operate public services on contract; training schemes to skill local people for employment – and to become directors of new community enterprises – a culture of enterprise. I don’t have to tell the people here, the amazing range of activities which Development Trusts undertake. If the Wester Hailes partnership had endowed a community trust all these activities would still be operating – increasing in confidence and competence.

The lesson is – that giving communities the opportunity to participate in so -called partnerships – arrangements essentially controlled by government – is no substitute for them having the power to decide and act for themselves. Empowered communities – unlocking the energy and imagination of local people – have the potential to play a major role alongside local government in making successful communities – but not as compliant subordinates. Communities can only be truly partners when they have achieved a degree of independence. A truly empowered community will have the capacity to disagree with the council – in its pursuit of its own vision for itself.

Experience across the UK shows that the most common characteristic of communities which have empowered themselves – is that they have been able to unite under the leadership of one locally owned organisation – which acts as the ‘Anchor’ for future progress. The term Anchor is not some new fashionable word that we all have to learn- LPL uses it simply to denote whichever organization it happens to be – which co-ordinates the energy of a particular community. It can be the local housing association – community council – a church group – very often it’s a Development Trust.

LPL has made the promotion of – locally owned – asset holding community anchors a key objective of our campaign. You may be aware that in 2009 an estimated £400 million in dormant bank accounts will provide a one-off windfall for the Third Sector in the UK. 10% of that – £40 million will be allocated in Scotland by our devolved government. The problem with such allocations is that they always seem to go to the agencies best able to promote themselves – at the expense of our poorest citizens. LPL calls on our government to be bold – to nominate our 20 most deprived communities and allocate to each an endowment of £2 million in perpetuity. The interest on such an endowment should provide an Anchor organisation / Development Trust in each of these areas with a core income of around £100k per annum – independent of the political and budget fluctuations of local government.

This amount would provide Development Trusts with stable management and development capacity to plan long term.

Such a bold move would signal a dramatic policy shift. It would be to acknowledge that after 40 years of `top down` urban regeneration, the poorest communities have not moved on, that the government and its partnerships have failed these people – and that it’s time to let communities get on with it. LPL believe that an endowment approach will allow communities the necessary independence and continuity to show what they can do.

Over the next 3 months – till Sept 08 – the Scottish Government will be consulting on how the dormant accounts money should be allocated. Can I ask that if you agree with our proposal, you register as a supporter of LPL on our website and consider attending one of the consultation meetings?

Finally – I started by making the distinction between civic society – the realm of the state – and civil society – the realm of the citizen. I would like to end with the question – where does community empowerment sit between these two? Is it about engaging our communities as the lowest rung in the state apparatus complimenting the role of councillors? Or is it about releasing the energy and imagination of our people as an independent force – outwith the direction of the state. This is the crunch issue – which will be decided in Scotland over the next couple of years.

The political parties` election manifestos for the 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections appeared to confirm the enthusiasm among Scottish politicians for extending the spirit of devolution to citizens and communities. The SNP`s manifesto was the most specific and included bold and radical commitments on issues such as community councils and the community ownership of assets.
Against this background – Local People Leading is very disappointed by the limited ambition and scope of the recent joint commitment on community empowerment from Scottish Government and COSLA.
We believe that as it currently stands, it will be a huge missed opportunity if it does not do more to empower communities directly. There is a wealth of experience and skills in the community sector in Scotland which would enable the piloting and implementation of a much more effective programme on community empowerment and engagement.

But I’d like to end on a positive note –
Scottish Government has decided that it will take forward the empowerment agenda jointly with COSLA. It has to be a step forward that central and local government are working together. Their joint commitment states unequivocally that they both see community empowerment as a key element of what they are about – and that this is the starting point of a long journey. In this spirit, Local People Leading looks forward to being part of the forthcoming dialogue – with a view to advancing some of the actions outlined in our position statement.

Thank you.

 

Briefings

Partners in regeneration

Although the relationship between local and national government has never been a particularly easy one, if some of those tensions could be resolved on a permanent basis, we would undoubtedly all reap the dividends. It’s why the Local Governance Review is such an important piece of work. But, despite their differences, our two tiers of government frequently manage to collaborate to great effect. A sterling example of this partnership working was announced last week with 26 community organisations receiving very significant capital investments - many of the awards being in the £1m+ category.

 

Author: Scottish Housing News

More than £25 million is going to disadvantaged and remote communities around Scotland to support regeneration and employment projects.

The Victoria Road school in Aberdeen

A project led by Torry Development Trust and Grampian Housing Association to transform the 19th Century Victoria Road school in Aberdeen into affordable housing received £1.4 million from the Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF), which will go to 26 projects to tackle inequalities and deliver inclusive growth.

Over 400 business and organisations will benefit from the projects which will support or create more than 1220 jobs as well as thousands of training places by refurbishing and bringing back into use 26 empty buildings to provide space for community enterprises.

Communities secretary Aileen Campbell said: “Together with COSLA we have invested almost £200m through this fund since 2014 in support of locally-led regeneration projects which help to build the resilience and wellbeing of communities. I am pleased that a further 26 projects will benefit from the fund as we look to a period of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have had to lead our lives locally, pulling together more as communities, to see off the many challenges arising from coronavirus. This latest round of investment into local projects continues our ongoing support for vibrant and accessible town centres and communities.”

COSLA’s environment and economy spokesperson Councillor Steven Heddle said: “This work has never been more important as we look to rebuild from the devastating impact of COVID-19. Recovery from the virus must be fair to our communities and promote inclusivity, growth and wellbeing.

“The innovative projects announced today can empower our communities to deliver better places to live and work.”

Among the projects being funded this year is The Old Clyne School Redevelopment Project in Brora, Highland. It will redevelop a derelict C-listed building to become a community-owned museum and heritage centre, and to be a base for the Clyne Heritage Society.

Dr Nick Lindsay, chairman of the Clyne Heritage Society, said: “This is the best news that we could have hoped for, in what has been a very difficult year. This should unlock the final ‘brick-in-the-wall’ funds from other funding partners, so we can deliver this major development for Brora.

“We can now fulfil our dreams by regenerating the Old Clyne School into a must-visit destination, transforming a current eyesore into a welcome attraction for the whole community and future generations.”

The projects to receive an offer of a grant in 2021-22 are as follows:

Aberdeen City Council   Victoria Road School Community Element            £1,408,965

Aberdeenshire Council  Number 30, The Square                                                             £2,490,903

Argyll and Bute Council  Kilmory Park Zones 1, 2 & 4, Lochgilphead                 £650,000

Argyll and Bute Council  Port Ellen Community Hub                                             £746,223

Argyll and Bute Council  Scalasaig Business Units                                                                   £335,000

City of Edinburgh Council              Granton Station; Enterprise Hub                                     £1,236,150

City of Edinburgh Council              Nourishing Leith Hub                                                £944,744

Comhairlie nan Eilean Siar            Leverhulme Community Hub                                   £300,000

Dundee City Council       Camperdown Community Growing Hub                                            £899,305

East Dunbartonshire Council Twechar Outdoor Pursuits Training and Education Centre £1,100,000

Fife Council         Town House Community Hub – Inverkeithing                                     £475,000

Glasgow City Council      The Meat Market Sheds Regeneration Project                   £2,640,000

Glasgow City Council      Greater Pollok Community Learning Hub                              £600,000

Glasgow City Council      SWG3: Yardworks Street Arts Hub                                             £500,000

Highland Council               Old Clyne School Redevelopment into new Heritage Centre        £982,793

Highland Council               Raasay Community Pontoon                                                               £442,858

Inverclyde Council           The Inverclyde Shed | Meet, Make + Share                                     £504,804

Inverclyde Council           Community Hub , KGVI                                                                     £1,184,000

North Ayrshire Council  The Regeneration of Millport Town Hall                                                 £1,500,000

North Ayrshire Council  Stevenston Beach Hub                                                                         £130,000

North Lanarkshire Council            Reeltime, Motherwell – Music Studios & Creative Hub   £1,171,270

North Lanarkshire Council            Springhill Community Hub                                                            £790,000

Perth and Kinross Council             The Perth Y Centre                                                                      £1,500,000

Scottish Borders Council               Yetholm Community Asset Regeneration Project                   £133,710

South Ayrshire Council  Enterprising Carrick                                                                                      £729,659

West Dunbartonshire Council     Viresco Studios and Arts Centre                                                               £750,000

 

Briefings

FebFest – growing food in the city

For whatever reason, lockdown seems to have shifted our attitudes towards food. Perhaps because we’ve become more acutely aware of the fragility of the global food system or it’s because we’ve more time on our hands, but the community growing movement is ever expanding and Councils across the board report ever lengthening waiting lists for allotment plots. In a bid to inspire and enthuse those of us who have yet to dig their first potato, Glasgow Allotments Forum are hosting FebFest later this month. Jill Edumdsen from Sheffield Uni explains why food growing is fast becoming an urban preoccupation.

 

Author: Jill Edumdsen, Sheffield University

More than half of the growing global population now live in cities and towns, and in the UK and many other countries in the global north that figure exceeds 80%. As a consequence, most people are now physically distant from the production of food.

Urban horticulture – growing fruits and vegetables within cities and towns – can support biodiversity and improve health and wellbeing. It can also reconnect the urban population with food production, and make a potentially important contribution to food security.

Allotments – plots of land leased to individuals to grow fruit and vegetables – could play a key role in increasing urban food production. Our research shows that although they have seen a significant fall since their peak in the 1950s, allotments still make an important contribution to local food security. There is also the potential to greatly increase this contribution.

Grow your own

During the COVID-19 pandemic, more people have started to grow their own produce, and local authorities have seen increases in the waiting lists for allotment plots. This is likely due to people spending more time at home, and perhaps also being more aware of the fragility of the global food system.

Access to fresh fruit and vegetables is key to any nation’s health and food security, but countries now rely on complex global supply chains to deliver crops to the population. Urban horticulture could be used to increase the domestic supply of fruit and vegetables, producing food locally and close to the point of demand. This would also increases the resilience of supply of fruit and vegetables to people living in cities and town in response to future food shocks like those seen at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the UK and many other countries in the global north, the majority of urban horticultural production is at a household level. It takes place in gardens, allotments, or community growing spaces.

This has played an historically important role in the British diet. During the second world war, households grew 18% of the UK’s fruit and vegetables by value in allotments and gardens. But the quantity of land made available for allotments has since fallen dramatically. Our research shows that between the 1950s and the present day, there has been a 65% reduction in allotment land in the UK.

Lost land

This reduction has not taken place evenly across the UK. The most deprived communities have faced an eight times greater loss of allotments when compared to the least deprived. This is a loss of the ability to grow food in areas where communities are most at risk from not having enough food.

Despite being at an all-time low in provision, we estimated that in both Leicester and Sheffield, allotments were still producing enough food to feed 3% of the cities’ population their recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

In Sheffield, allotments currently account for less than 2% of the city’s available green space. Our analysis showed that, in addition to existing allotments, a further 11% of the city’s green space is suitable for this kind of horticulture, and 4% is suitable for community gardens.

This could feed a third of the Sheffield population their five a day annually, though clearly not all of this land could or should be used for urban horticulture. If just a fifth of it was used for this purpose, it could still feed 7% of the city’s population their five a day, more than doubling current provision.

Our research has shown that there is clear potential to expand horticultural production. It is also important that any conversion of land for this practice should be done equitably across cities and towns, so that disadvantaged areas get as much space as wealthier areas.

Many UK towns and cities have already successfully integrated food-growing into their urban landscape, with the involvement of the local community. An example is the Incredible Edible Network of community-growing plots, built from an initial project in Todmorden, Yorkshire.

More research is needed to understand the issues that could drive or constrain the expansion of urban horticulture. These include understanding the trade-offs between competing demands for green space in cities, such as between recreation and horticulture.

It is also crucial to understand the factors which might stop people from taking up urban horticulture, as well as raising awareness of its benefits. This could include informing people about the gains in health and wellbeing that come from growing food, and providing education to encourage people into urban

Briefings

Calling all shifters

In some ways the recent spat between EU and UK over vaccine distribution was wholly inevitable. At times of crisis, these fears and anxieties stoke feelings of nationalism and hostility towards others with any sense that we are ‘all in this together’ being quickly jettisoned. But clearly not everyone reacts in this way. A new book by psychologist Steve Taylor suggests that many who experience some kind of personal trauma in their own lives, undergo a form of ‘post-traumatic personal growth’ which moves them to a higher level of functioning and human development. He calls these people the ‘shifters’

 

Author: Steve Taylor

There are countless different species on the surface of this planet. One of these is the human race, which has over seven billion members. In one sense, there are no nations, just groups of humans inhabiting different areas of the planet. In some cases, there are natural borders formed by sea or mountains, but often borders between nations are simply abstractions, imaginary boundaries established by agreement or conflict.

Rusty Schweikhart, a member of the 1969 Apollo 9 space mission, explained how when he looked at the Earth from space, he experienced a profound shift in perspective. Like most of us, he was brought up to think in terms of countries with borders and different nationalities, but seeing the world from this new angle changed his view. He felt “part of everyone and everything”. As he described it:

You look down there and you can’t imagine how many borders and boundaries you cross, again and again and again, and you don’t even see them.

Schweikhart’s perspective reminds us that we belong to the Earth rather than to a nation, and to a species rather than a nationality. And although we might feel distinct and different, we all have a common source. Our species originally developed in eastern Africa around 200,000 years ago and migrated out into the rest of the world in a series of waves. If there was an ancestry website that could trace our lineage back to the very beginning, we would find that we all have the same great-great (followed by many other “greats”) grandparents.

How then do we explain nationalism? Why do humans separate themselves into groups and take on different national identities? Maybe different groups are helpful in terms of organisation, but that doesn’t explain why we feel different. Or why different nations compete and fight with one another.

The psychological theory of “terror management” offers one clue. This theory, which has been validated by many studies, shows that when people are made to feel insecure and anxious, they tend to become more concerned with nationalism, status and success. We seem to have an impulse to cling to labels of identity to defend ourselves against insecurity. There has, however, been criticism of the theory by some psychologists who believe it overlooks wider factors that contribute to human behaviour.

That said, the theory could go some way to help explain why nationalism grows in times of crisis and uncertainty. Poverty and economic instability often lead to increased nationalism and to ethnic conflict. An increased sense of insecurity brings a stronger need for conceptual labels to strengthen our sense of identity. We also feel the impulse to gain security through the feeling of belonging to a group with shared beliefs and conventions.

On this basis then it’s likely that people who feel the strongest sense of separation and the highest levels of insecurity and anxiety, are the most prone to nationalism, racism and to fundamentalist religion.

Beyond nationalism

One pertinent finding from my own research as a psychologist is that people who experience high levels of wellbeing (together with a strong sense of connection to others, or to the world in general) don’t tend to have a sense of group identity.

I have studied many people who have undergone profound personal transformation following intense psychological turmoil, such as bereavement or a diagnosis of cancer. I sometimes refer to these people as “shifters”, since they appear to shift up to a higher level of human development. They undergo a dramatic form of “post-traumatic growth”. Their lives become richer, more fulfilling and meaningful. They have a new sense of appreciation, a heightened awareness of their surroundings, a wider sense of perspective and more intimate and authentic relationships.

As I report in my book, The Leap, one of the common traits of “shifters” is that they no longer define themselves in terms of nationality, religion or ideology. They no longer feel they are American or British, or a Muslim or a Jew. They feel the same kinship with all human beings. If they have any sense of identity at all, it’s as global citizens, members of the human race and inhabitants of the planet Earth – beyond nationality or border. Shifters lose the need for group identity because they no longer feel separate and so have no sense of fragility and insecurity.

In my view, then, all nationalistic enterprises – such as “America First” or Brexit – are highly problematic, as they are based on anxiety and insecurity, so inevitably create discord and division. And since nationalism contravenes the essential reality of human nature and human origins, such enterprises always turn out to be temporary. It’s impossible to override the fundamental interconnectedness of the human race. At some point, it always reasserts itself.

Like the world itself, our most serious problems have no borders. Problems like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change affect us collectively and so can only be solved collectively – from a trans-nationalist approach. Such issues can only be properly solved by viewing humans as one species, without borders or boundaries.

Ultimately, nationalism is a psychological aberration. We owe it our ancestors and to our descendants – and to the Earth itself – to move beyond it.

 

Briefings

Amsterdammers walking (and cycling) the talk

There’s a lot of talk just now about how, when we finally emerge from this pandemic, we will do things very differently. Not to dismiss the importance of talk (always the necessary precursor to action) but experience suggests that talking is the easy part whereas the action usually proves to be much more elusive. Which is why we should all take a leaf out of the book being written to describe the Amsterdam’s conversion to Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. From the city leaders to the average Amsterdammer, the ambitious talk is actually being converted into action.

 

Author: Ciara Nugent, Time

One evening in December, after a long day working from home, Jennifer Drouin, 30, headed out to buy groceries in central Amsterdam. Once inside, she noticed new price tags. The label by the zucchini said they cost a little more than normal: 6¢ extra per kilo for their carbon footprint, 5¢ for the toll the farming takes on the land, and 4¢ to fairly pay workers. “There are all these extra costs to our daily life that normally no one would pay for, or even be aware of,” she says.

The so-called true-price initiative, operating in the store since late 2020, is one of dozens of schemes that Amsterdammers have introduced in recent months as they reassess the impact of the existing economic system. By some accounts, that system, capitalism, has its origins just a mile from the grocery store. In 1602, in a house on a narrow alley, a merchant began selling shares in the nascent Dutch East India Company. In doing so, he paved the way for the creation of the first stock exchange—and the capitalist global economy that has transformed life on earth. “Now I think we’re one of the first cities in a while to start questioning this system,” Drouin says. “Is it actually making us healthy and happy? What do we want? Is it really just economic growth?”

In April 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19, Amsterdam’s city government announced it would recover from the crisis, and avoid future ones, by embracing the theory of “doughnut economics.” Laid out by British economist Kate Raworth in a 2017 book, the theory argues that 20th century economic thinking is not equipped to deal with the 21st century reality of a planet teetering on the edge of climate breakdown. Instead of equating a growing GDP with a successful society, our goal should be to fit all of human life into what Raworth calls the “sweet spot” between the “social foundation,” where everyone has what they need to live a good life, and the “environmental ceiling.” By and large, people in rich countries are living above the environmental ceiling. Those in poorer countries often fall below the social foundation. The space in between: that’s the doughnut.

Amsterdam’s ambition is to bring all 872,000 residents inside the doughnut, ensuring everyone has access to a good quality of life, but without putting more pressure on the planet than is sustainable. Guided by Raworth’s organization, the Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL), the city is introducing massive infrastructure projects, employment schemes and new policies for government contracts to that end. Meanwhile, some 400 local people and organizations have set up a network called the Amsterdam Doughnut Coalition—managed by Drouin— to run their own programs at a grassroots level.

It’s the first time a major city has attempted to put doughnut theory into action on a local level, but Amsterdam is not alone. Raworth says DEAL has received an avalanche of requests from municipal leaders and others seeking to build more resilient societies in the aftermath of COVID-19. Copenhagen’s city council majority decided to follow Amsterdam’s example in June, as did the Brussels region and the small city of Dunedin, New Zealand, in September, and Nanaimo, British Columbia, in December. In the U.S., Portland, Ore., is preparing to roll out its own version of the doughnut, and Austin may be close behind. The theory has won Raworth some high-profile fans; in November, Pope Francis endorsed her “fresh thinking,” while celebrated British naturalist Sir David Attenborough dedicated a chapter to the doughnut in his latest book, A Life on Our Planet, calling it “our species’ compass for the journey” to a sustainable future.

Now, Amsterdam is grappling with what the doughnut would look like on the ground. Marieke van Doorninck, the deputy mayor for sustainability and urban planning, says the pandemic added urgency that helped the city get behind a bold new strategy. “Kate had already told us what to do. COVID showed us the way to do it,” she says. “I think in the darkest times, it’s easiest to imagine another world.”

In 1990, Raworth, now 50, arrived at Oxford University to study economics. She quickly became frustrated by the content of the lectures, she recalls over Zoom from her home office in Oxford, where she now teaches. She was learning about ideas from decades and sometimes centuries ago: supply and demand, efficiency, rationality and economic growth as the ultimate goal. “The concepts of the 20th century emerged from an era in which humanity saw itself as separated from the web of life,” Raworth says. In this worldview, she adds, environmental issues are relegated to what economists call “externalities.” “It’s just an ultimate absurdity that in the 21st century, when we know we are witnessing the death of the living world unless we utterly transform the way we live, that death of the living world is called ‘an environmental externality.’”

Almost two decades after she left university, as the world was reeling from the 2008 financial crash, Raworth struck upon an alternative to the economics she had been taught. She had gone to work in the charity sector and in 2010, sitting in the open-plan office of the antipoverty nonprofit Oxfam in Oxford, she came across a diagram. A group of scientists studying the conditions that make life on earth possible had identified nine “planetary boundaries” that would threaten humans’ ability to survive if crossed, like the acidification of the oceans. Inside these boundaries, a circle colored in green showed the safe place for humans.

But if there’s an ecological overshoot for the planet, she thought, there’s also the opposite: shortfalls creating deprivation for humanity. “Kids not in school, not getting decent health care, people facing famine in the Sahel,” she says. “And so I drew a circle within their circle, and it looked like a doughnut.”

Inner Ring: Twelve essentials of life that no one in society should be deprived of; Outer Ring: Nine ecological limits of earth’s life-­supporting systems that humanity must not collectively overshoot; Sweet Spot: The space both environmentally safe and socially just where humanity can thrive

Raworth published her theory of the doughnut as a paper in 2012 and later as a 2017 book, which has since been translated into 20 languages. The theory doesn’t lay out specific policies or goals for countries. It requires stakeholders to decide what benchmarks would bring them inside the doughnut—emission limits, for example, or an end to homelessness. The process of setting those benchmarks is the first step to becoming a doughnut economy, she says.

Raworth argues that the goal of getting “into the doughnut” should replace governments’ and economists’ pursuit of never-ending GDP growth. Not only is the primacy of GDP overinflated when we now have many other data sets to measure economic and social well-being, she says, but also, endless growth powered by natural resources and fossil fuels will inevitably push the earth beyond its limits. “When we think in terms of health, and we think of something that tries to grow endlessly within our bodies, we recognize that immediately: that would be a cancer.”

The doughnut can seem abstract, and it has attracted criticism. Some conservatives say the doughnut model can’t compete with capitalism’s proven ability to lift millions out of poverty. Some critics on the left say the doughnut’s apolitical nature means it will fail to tackle ideology and political structures that prevent climate action.

Cities offer a good opportunity to prove that the doughnut can actually work in practice. In 2019, C40, a network of 97 cities focused on climate action, asked Raworth to create reports on three of its members—Amsterdam, Philadelphia and Portland—showing how far they were from living inside the doughnut. Inspired by the process, Amsterdam decided to run with it. The city drew up a “circular strategy” combining the doughnut’s goals with the principles of a “circular economy,” which reduces, reuses and recycles materials across consumer goods, building materials and food. Policies aim to protect the environment and natural resources, reduce social exclusion and guarantee good living standards for all. Van Doorninck, the deputy mayor, says the doughnut was a revelation. “I was brought up in Thatcher times, in Reagan times, with the idea that there’s no alternative to our economic model,” she says. “Reading the doughnut was like, Eureka! There is an alternative! Economics is a social science, not a natural one. It’s invented by people, and it can be changed by people.”

The new, doughnut-shaped world Amsterdam wants to build is coming into view on the southeastern side of the city. Rising almost 15 ft. out of placid waters of Lake IJssel lies the city’s latest flagship construction project, Strandeiland (Beach Island). Part of IJburg, an archipelago of six new islands built by city contractors, Beach Island was reclaimed from the waters with sand carried by boats run on low-emission fuel. The foundations were laid using processes that don’t hurt local wildlife or expose future residents to sea-level rise. Its future neighborhood is designed to produce zero emissions and to prioritize social housing and access to nature. Beach Island embodies Amsterdam’s new priority: balance, says project manager Alfons Oude Ophuis. “Twenty years ago, everything in the city was focused on production of houses as quickly as possible. It’s still important, but now we take more time to do the right thing.”

Lianne Hulsebosch, IJburg’s sustainability adviser, says the doughnut has shaped the mindset of the team, meaning Beach Island and its future neighbor Buiteneiland are more focused on sustainability than the first stage of IJburg, completed around 2012. “It’s not that every day-to-day city project has to start with the doughnut, but the model is really part of our DNA now,” she says. “You notice in the conversations that we have with colleagues. We’re doing things that 10 years ago we wouldn’t have done because we are valuing things differently.”

The city has introduced standards for sustainability and circular use of materials for contractors in all city-owned buildings. Anyone wanting to build on Beach Island, for example, will need to provide a “materials passport” for their buildings, so whenever they are taken down, the city can reuse the parts.

On the mainland, the pandemic has inspired projects guided by the doughnut’s ethos. When the Netherlands went into lockdown in March, the city realized that thousands of residents didn’t have access to computers that would become increasingly necessary to socialize and take part in society. Rather than buy new devices—which would have been expensive and eventually contribute to the rising problem of e-waste—the city arranged collections of old and broken laptops from residents who could spare them, hired a firm to refurbish them and distributed 3,500 of them to those in need. “It’s a small thing, but to me it’s pure doughnut,” says van Doorninck.

Gemeente Amsterdam

The local government is also pushing the private sector to do its part, starting with the thriving but ecologically harmful fashion industry. Amsterdam claims to have the highest concentration of denim brands in the world, and that the average resident owns five pairs of jeans. But denim is one of the most resource-intensive fabrics in the world, with each pair of jeans requiring thousands of gallons of water and the use of polluting chemicals.

In October, textile suppliers, jeans brands and other links in the denim supply chain signed the “Denim Deal,” agreeing to work together to produce 3 billion garments that include 20% recycled materials by 2023—no small feat given the treatments the fabric undergoes and the mix of materials incorporated into a pair of jeans. The city will organize collections of old denim from Amsterdam residents and eventually create a shared repair shop for the brands, where people can get their jeans fixed rather than throwing them away. “Without that government support and the pressure on the industry, it will not change. Most companies need a push,” says Hans Bon of denim supplier Wieland Textiles.

Of course, many in the city were working on sustainability, social issues or ways to make life better in developing countries before the city embraced the doughnut. But Drouin, manager of Amsterdam’s volunteer coalition, says the concept has forced a more fundamental reckoning with the city’s way of life. “It has really changed people’s mindset, because you can see all the problems in one picture. It’s like a harsh mirror on the world that you face.”

Doughnut economIcs may be on the rise in Amsterdam, a relatively wealthy city with a famously liberal outlook, in a democratic country with a robust state. But advocates of the theory face a tough road to effectively replace capitalism. In Nanaimo, Canada, a city councillor who opposed the adoption of the model in December called it “a very left-wing philosophy which basically says that business is bad, growth is bad, development’s bad.”

In fact, the doughnut model doesn’t proscribe all economic growth or development. In her book, Raworth acknowledges that for low- and middle-income countries to climb above the doughnut’s social foundation, “significant GDP growth is very much needed.” But that economic growth needs to be viewed as a means to reach social goals within ecological limits, she says, and not as an indicator of success in itself, or a goal for rich countries. In a doughnut world, the economy would sometimes be growing and sometimes shrinking.

Still, some economists are skeptical of the idealism. In his 2018 review of Raworth’s book, Branko Milanovic, a scholar at CUNY’s Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, says for the doughnut to take off, humans would need to “magically” become “indifferent to how well we do compared to others, and not really care about wealth and income.”

In cities that are grappling with the immediate social and economic effects of COVID-19, though, the doughnut framework is proving appealing, says Joshua Alpert, the Portland-based director of special projects at C40. “All of our mayors are working on this question: How do we rebuild our cities post-COVID? Well, the first place to start is with the doughnut.” Alpert says they have had “a lot of buy-in” from city leaders. “Because it’s framed as a first step, I think it’s been easier for mayors to say this is a natural progression that is going to help us actually move out of COVID in a much better way.”

Drouin says communities in Amsterdam also have helped drive the change. “If you start something and you can make it visible, and prove that you or your neighborhood is benefiting, then your city will wake up and say we need to support them.” In her own neighborhood, she says, residents began using parking spaces to hold dinners with their neighbors during summer, and eventually persuaded the municipality to convert many into community gardens.

Citizen-led groups focused on the doughnut that are forming in places including São Paulo, Berlin, Kuala Lumpur and California bring the potential to transform their own areas from the bottom up. “It’s powerful when you have peers inspiring peers to act: a teacher inspires another teacher, or a schoolchild inspires their class, a mayor inspires another mayor,” Raworth says. “I’m really convinced that’s the way things are going to happen if we’re going to get the transformation that we need this decade.”

COVID-19 has the potential to massively accelerate that transformation, if governments use economic-stimulus packages to favor industries that lead us toward a more sustainable economy, and phase out those that don’t. Raworth cites Milton Friedman—the diehard free-market 20th century economist—who famously said that “when [a] crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” In July, Raworth’s DEAL group published the methodology it used to produce the “city portrait” that is guiding Amsterdam’s embrace of the doughnut, making it available for any local government to use. “This is the crisis,” she says. “We’ve made sure our ideas are lying around.”

 

Briefings

Deja vu?

Ever since social enterprise first entered the lexicon of third sector policy wonks, consensus about its true meaning has proved elusive. Ten years ago, in an attempt to bring some clarity, an idea imported from south of the border - the Social Enterprise Mark -  was launched, only to sink with little trace a few years later. Undaunted by that experience, a new venture - Social Enterprise Places - has surfaced. Clearly well intended, but with little information about the benefits that accrue to these ‘places’, alarm bells are ringing. Sometimes, initiatives with the best of intentions can have unintended consequences. 

 

Author: Social Enterprise Scotland

The Social Enterprise Places was launched by Social Enterprise Scotland in November 2019. Building in the programme originally developed by SEUK (Social Enterprise UK) we were keen to promote the great work in Scotland and wanted to adapt the initiative to reflect the Scottish landscape.

Callander was Scotland’s first ever Social Enterprise Place and we are delighted to now welcome Uist, Lewis and Govan following our first round of applications here in Scotland.

Scotland has long had a reputation for social enterprise activity and on the 21st January Social Enterprise Scotland we were thrilled to welcome Uist and Lewis to the Places programme for Scotland. In addition, Govan will be highlighted as ‘one to watch’ in 2021.

Social Enterprise Places are local areas where social enterprise activity is thriving, from neighbourhoods, to villages, towns, islands and both urban and rural communities. Social Enterprise Scotland has been encouraging local areas to recognise themselves as Social Enterprise Places committed to developing and investing in their local areas. The programme aims to promote, raise awareness, and build markets for social enterprises. While 2021 remains a challenging time for many areas the pandemic has also highlighted the role that social enterprise plays in supporting their community and Social Enterprise Scotland want to make sure their work is highlighted.

We are delighted that applications for the next round of our Places programme are now open. We will bring on new Places twice a year with deadlines on March 31st and September 30th. Please contact Naomi if you have any questions about this – we’d love to work with you on this.

Ready to Begin Your Application? Complete the online application form.

March 31st and September 30th 2020 – – APPLICATION DEADLINE

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information please contact naomi.johnson@socialenterprise.scot

 

 

Briefings

If not now, when.

No shortage of ideas for a post-Covid Scotland in the final report from the Social Renewal Advisory Board, convened by Cab Secs, Aileen Campbell and Shirley-Anne Somerville. Lots of ideas for what ‘should’ be done and what ‘needs’ to be done - less so, and perhaps more importantly, about what we have to ‘stop’ doing in order to bring forward this vision of a more just and equitable Scotland. Surely we need to accept where we’ve been getting it wrong and what we need to do less of  in order to set a new course for a better, brighter future. 

 

Author: Leigh Sparks, Stirling University

The last ten month have been the strangest time; as we all recognise.  Our experiences though have not all been the same.  I am one of the fortunate ones; I can work from home and had a large garden to keep me occupied over the summer.  I’ve missed some freedoms and experiences, but as a consequence have not spent as much money.

Others have been no where as fortunate and many have been very adversely affected by the circumstances they were, and are, in.  Existing inequalities have been exacerbated by the pandemic and new inequalities have been created.  Women, single parent families, front-line workers, ethnic minorities, refugees and disabled people are amongst those who have often suffered badly.  Disadvantage was already polarised in society and has been reinforced, most obviously, and tragically, in the deaths and the case numbers.

The response in many communities has been phenomenal and volunteering and support networks have stepped in to fill the all too many gaps. Local authorities, third sector and others have provided a rapid local support lifeline (term used advisedly).

This stands in contrast to some of the negative stories of recent weeks.  The rise in gender and child violence in lockdown.  The increase in hate and race crime.  The refusal to recognise the need for financial lifelines (decency) for so many, as in the Universal Credit debate. The penny-pinching approach towards so many things by the UK Government, yet the contrast of that with the companies it has employed (normally without tenders or without looking for local pre-existing expertise), the prices and daily rates it has paid, all seen notably and perhaps most shockingly in those pictures of ‘school meal’ replacements.

All of this points to an insistence that we must – and can – do better in the future.  We need to sweep away much of the ways we think about supporting and helping individuals and communities to live decent lives.  The ways we were doing this before the pandemic (which was not working) should be unacceptable now; we can not return to what was there before, as it was failing people, communities and the country.  We have to treat citizens better and involve them properly in the life of the community and country, and build our local resilience.

What might this mean?

For the last six months or so I have been part of the Social Renewal Advisory Board for the Scottish Government.  This was tasked with looking at the social aspects of renewal for Scotland post-pandemic.  Based around practical expertise and listening extensively to the lived experiences of those most affected by the pandemic, the Board was directed to come up with radical solutions to some of our deep-seated social problems and notably those that enabled so much damage and differential impacts in the pandemic.

The Social Renewal Advisory Board Report is now published.  It is both a view of what needs to be done now, and in the coming years.  It is organised around 20 Calls for Action (see below) which together seek to alter the nature of our deeply differentiated and segregated society.  My involvement was mainly in the communities and place components of these (in the Calls for Action, Communities and Collective Endeavour); listening to and about the lived experiences of so many, showed why we must change our approach nationally, and how communities, places and towns can be important in this.

There will be inevitable reactions to the Report around costs and economics, but if we are at all serious about being a wellbeing and a fairer country, then we must take such steps and alter many of our priorities and actions. We need to make the join up between social and economic renewal (and recall the words of Jacinda Ardern – “Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success … It is failure”).

It simply is not right that if you come from certain places, had certain types of jobs (or no job), had pre-existing conditions, disability or deprivation, or a certain colour of skin, then you were so much more likely to die last and this year.  That you had so little to fall back on, other than the kindness of neighbours or strangers. And that this was the consequence of our actions over years.

We can do better; we must do better, and we must start now. Here are the Calls to Action. The detail is in the Report.

Social Renewal Advisory Board – Calls To Action

Money and Work

  1. Commit to a Minimum Income Guarantee for all as a long-term aim.
  2. Develop an approach to anti-poverty work, including personal debt, that is designed around the needs of the individual.
  3. Work in partnership to develop a new social contract on Fair Work.
  4. Focus Fair Work actions on those most affected by the pandemic.
  5. Extend free early learning, childcare and social care so all parents and carers can access the childcare they need, when they need it.

People, Rights and Advancing Equality

  1. Incorporate the right to an adequate and accessible home in Scots Law.
  2. Make sure there are enough homes that are safe, warm, accessible, affordable, and in places people want to live.
  3. Ensure everyone can access nutritious, culturally appropriate and affordable food.
  4. Set a target to end digital exclusion in the next parliamentary term.
  5. Adopt the principles of Universal Basic Services.
  6. Incorporate key international human rights instruments into Scots Law so as to deliver real change.
  7. Take action to realise the human rights of disabled people.
  8. Build inclusive communication into all national and local government funding requirements.
  9. Strengthen approaches to prevent and address hate crime and public sexual harassment.
  10. Apply the rights and entitlements in this report to all migrants.

Communities and collective endeavour

  1. Further shift the balance of power so individuals and communities have more control over decisions that affect their lives.
  2. Improve service delivery and design by empowering frontline teams and the people and communities they serve.
  3. Build on new ways of working, based on what has worked well during the pandemic, and develop new arrangements for local governance.
  4. Focus everyone and all activities on building more resilient, fairer, healthier and stronger communities and places.

Closing The Gap Between Promise and Practice

  1. Co-design how we assess progress towards renewal, incorporating deeper engagement with those people and communities who have first-hand experience of poverty, inequality and restricted life chances.

 

 

Briefings

Housing as a ‘social asset’

The root causes of our housing crisis are complex and not wholly to do with our dysfunctional land market. A longstanding attitude to home ownership and the rented sector has placed home ownership above all other options. It is of course very different in other countries where renting high quality, affordable accomodation for life is considered the norm. In Singapore, for instance, housing is considered to be a ‘social asset’, as a result of large scale state intervention in the market, which has enabled citizens to save for their retirement rather than enrich land and property speculators.

 

Author:  John Bryson Professor of Enterprise and Competitiveness, University of Birmingham

One of the beacons of UK social housing policy, the legislation from 1919 that became known as the Addison Act after its sponsor, the minister of health Christopher Addison, imposed for the first time a duty on councils to build good quality and affordable housing. But, as with most policies, it was only partially effective. Today, 100 years later, housing provision in the UK remains a major challenge, mired in problems of affordability and availability.

Britain is a home-owning nation, where housing is considered an investment asset for individuals rather than a social asset for society as a whole. This is unfortunate. As an investment, buyers pour their wealth into property on the understanding that they will benefit from rising values. The resulting price distortions lead to – among other things – localised skill shortages as key workers, teachers, nurses, firefighters are forced out by rising prices, unable to rent or buy.

But there are alternative arrangements to the hybrid housing economy that has developed in the UK – a mix of private sector ownership and renting and of housing provided by housing associations and (historically) by councils.

Housing as a social asset

Take Singapore, for example. Singapore had its own “Brexit” in 1965 when it separated from Malaysia. In 1960 the Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) was formed to provide affordable and high-quality housing for residents of this tiny city-state nation. Today, more than 80% of Singapore’s 5.4m residents live in housing provided by the development board.

These are issued by the state on 99-year leaseholds, and the value of the home depends on the inherent utility value of the property (size, type, location), with financing readily available, including that provided by the Central Provident Fund (CPF). The CPF is a social security system that enables working Singapore citizens and those with permanent resident status to set aside funds for retirement. It is a compulsory savings scheme, which includes contributions from employers, to set aside funds for healthcare and housing costs in later life.

Property buyers in Singapore can fund the purchase of a development board flat with a bank loan, a loan from the HDB, with cash, or with funds drawn from the CPF. In a similar way to the leasehold system in the UK, the resale value of an HDB flat deteriorates as the lease end date approaches, in this case when the lease drops to under 30 years. As is the case in the UK, difficulties arise in trying to finance homes with short leases. However, the HDB leasehold system is different as the “owners” have bought only the right to use the flat – the property title and ownership remains with HDB.

Additionally, the development board prohibits Singaporeans from owning more than two residential units at any time. In the case of an inherited flat, ownership is only allowed if the inheritor disposes of their existing private or public residential property within six months of inheriting it.

The HDB remains by far the dominant national housing provider, building and owning most residential housing and playing an extremely active role. Private sector housing is available, but it is much more expensive.

The differences between the approaches in the UK and Singapore are extreme. In the UK, council housing is considered to be a public sector cost – a burden to the taxpayer. For many people this is housing provision of last resort. In Singapore it is treated as an asset to the public purse, as well as a social asset – and carries no stigma, nor is seen as something to be avoided if possible. The UK’s mixed housing economy results in major social and economic distortions, whereas Singapore invests in housing precisely to avoid or counter those distortions.

In the UK, with the exception of the New Towns, housing has tended to involve creating individual assets rather than an approach based on place-making – creating neighbourhoods and communities. Singapore’s HDB housing units are built in HDB towns with housing units integrated with amenities including clinics, community facilities such as parks and sports facilities, and retail. As Singapore has developed economically, so HDB has also begun to produce more upmarket housing.

Transferring the solution that works for tiny Singapore to Britain would be impossible, but perhaps there are lessons to be learnt regarding a longer-term approach to meeting housing need.

One is to adopt a more integrated approach to housing: the conversation in Britain is dominated by the number of units provided and at what price they are sold, but a more sophisticated discussion would include who that housing is aimed at, where it needs to be, and how it is designed in order to create a sense of place. As important is the need to ensure housing is completely integrated into existing urban infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools and health services.

The fragmentation of housing ownership in the UK makes it extremely expensive to redevelop or make major modifications to existing residential areas – each owner would have to be persuaded to modify their property or sell up as part of a land assembly process. In Singapore, with a history of intensifying land use and population density, HDB ownership means it is able to rebuild old estates and maintain and develop the extent of integration with social amenities.

Major innovations are occurring that will transform the ways in which we live – and these must be reflected in our housing: more electric vehicles and driverless cars, home working, e-commerce and ever-increasing population densities in cities. The integrated approach of HDB means Singapore is able to take a long-term strategic approach to these changes – and so more easily ensure that residential areas have all the public amenities, public services, retail and transport infrastructure required for them to thrive. The UK would be wise to watch and learn.