Author: Cllr Joe Cullinane, Scottish Left Review

Joe Cullinane explains what North Ayrshire council is doing to roll back the neo-liberal tide.

We are in the midst of the biggest economic and social crisis of our lifetimes. Coronavirus has exposed the fragilities of our prevailing economic model which for decades has been based on extraction rather than production. An economic system where ‘economic growth’ has not resulted in higher wages and raised living standards for the many, but rather the massive accumulation of wealth by the few.

The last decade of austerity accelerated the disinvestment and disempowerment that has entrenched poverty in communities across Scotland and the current pandemic threatens to make it even worse. How we respond to the crisis will shape Scotland for decades to come – and now is not the time for more empty rhetoric. Vacuous proclamations like ‘Inclusive Growth’ or ‘Community Empowerment’, that have so easily rolled off the tongue of national politicians in recent years without any semblance of action or practice, will not suffice. We need a complete reset on the economy, from national government but also local government.

In North Ayrshire, my Labour administration is seizing the moment to press reset and to create a new local economy. North Ayrshire is an area with some deep-seated problems. Deindustrialisation in the 1980s ripped the heart out of Ayrshire’s proud industrial heritage. Big employers left and alternative employment never came. Local economic development has been largely limited to the pursuit of inward investment in the hope that, if the investment ever came, the benefits would trickle down to our citizens and communities. But readers of Scottish Left Review do not need me to tell them that trickle-down economics does not work. Instead, all it has done is rapidly increase wealth inequality, and in North Ayrshire its pursuit has resulted in up to 1 in 3 children in some of our communities being brought up in poverty.

It was clear before the Covid pandemic that we needed to break from the traditional economic development approaches that got us here in the first place. And in May, in the middle of the first lockdown, we launched Scotland’s first Community Wealth Building (CWB) strategy, setting out a new approach to the economy that will intentionally use the economic levers available to the local state to redirect wealth and economic control to the local economy and our communities.

Those economic levers include our public procurement spend, which totals over £1bn pa across the public sector in Ayrshire, the land and assets that we own and the power we can exert on the local labour market as the largest employers in our local and regional economy. But what is at the heart of our CWB strategy is more democratic control of the economy.

Take procurement for example, our intention is to support and create new local supply chains with more procurement spend, helping to create more local employment – but that’s not the limit of our ambitions as we want to use the spend to expand democratic forms of ownership by supporting co-operatives, social enterprises and worker owned businesses.

Similarly, we want to use the land and assets that we own for the common good. Too often, as a result of austerity, public bodies over the last decade have seen the land and buildings that they own simply as financial assets to be sold to manage budget cuts. That approach fails to recognise the actual economic and social value of those assets and through CWB we want to start realising that value by putting our land and assets into productive use to benefit the community. We will do that by pursuing policies that will transfer ownership to the community, convert vacant buildings in our towns into council housing and allocate land for rewilding and renewable energy generation to aid our fight against climate change.

As Ayrshire’s economy declined following deindustrialisation, family-owned businesses became the backbone of our economy. Those business have sustained employment for many through difficult times but so few family-owned businesses have succession plans in place representing a massive risk to our already weak labour market. That’s why our CWB strategy sets out the intention to work with those businesses on succession plans, and where possible to support their transition to worker ownership as the most viable option to protect the business and the employment it provides.

In total our strategy contains 55 actions. It is not a short-term project but a long-term intention to create a fairer, more inclusive, sustainable and democratic economy from the bottom up and that means it includes longer-term actions. One such action is to explore the creation of a West of Scotland Community Bank. It would be a mutually-owned bank that has a full banking licence from the Bank of England, enabling it to use its customers deposits to create new investment to support the regional economy it serves.

CWB is more than just another concept or term. Rather, it is economic practice that has the potential to turn the dial on our current economic model and to create new local economies that tackle the big issues we face such as poverty and deprivation, the concentration of wealth and the stagnation of living standards. It is a growing movement across the globe which should give us hope that a different economy is possible and the seeds of it are being grown by progressive municipal governments around the world.

Joe Cullinane is the leader of North Ayrshire Council and Cabinet Member for Community Wealth Building. He is a member of Scottish Labour.

Author: Calum Macleod

Read Community Land Scotland’s  manifesto –  Land for the Common Good here

Community Land Scotland’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Scotland Community Land Scotland’s manifesto for the Scottish Parliament Election presents bold and imaginative proposals that place communities’ relationship with land firmly at the heart of Scotland’s journey towards resilience and sustainability.

Collectively they focus on the following interlinked themes:

• Controlling land monopolies to protect the public interest
• Empowering communities to build local resilience
• Tackling the climate emergency while ensuring a just transition to net zero carbon emissions
• Repopulating our rural places to help them thrive
• Developing a fiscal framework for a fair and sustainable Scotland 5 Scotland

Executive Summary.    Full report here

A new wave of unclaimed assets could be worth billions of pounds. While this money may be a long way away, a consensus is already emerging around how these resources could be used most effectively for the benefit of society. The Government, NCVO, Locality and others are all keen to see the money used to provide strategic, long-term funding to support communities who need it the most.

Since the Brexit vote, many people in the UK have started to give greater consideration to how local communities might recapture a greater sense of empowerment and control over their futures. How can we bridge divides and address the feeling of being “left behind”? Rebuilding social capital and trust is back on the agenda – essential to the functioning of our society and economy.

We know that civil society builds trust and connections and creates a sense of belonging. Associations enable people to participate in their communities. But civil society is fragile and held back from helping communities fulfil their potential, due to a mix of funding pressures, market forces, myths about charity overheads, and flawed policy responses. We know we must address the fragility of the institutions and spaces that enable participation and association, in turnrebuilding social capital. This is how we can rebuild trust.

Some places have been left behind by globalisation as our economic model has not benefitted all communities equally. But areas of deep-seated deprivation can recover through emerging models of local economic development. Communities are seizing opportunities to do things for themselves. New Shared Prosperity Funds, which will replace European Structural Funds, will provide a unique

opportunity to support and develop these solutions. But prosperity requires investment in social, not just economic capital. We need to nurture social capital in areas where it is weak or non-existent and help communities develop the capabilities needed to participate in community economic development. This requires a new approach.

So our proposal envisages the creation of a Community Wealth Fund, providing long term, patient investment in support of place-led change – a fund to create opportunity and unlock the power of  communities. This fund would seek to empower people to develop solutions and enable communities to develop their own responses.

Unclaimed assets in insurance and pension funds, bonds and stock and shares are potentially worth billions of pounds. But we could see the creation of a fund worth £4 – £5 billion if a range of resources were brought together. This could include the release of share capital from the private sector, civil society’s stranded assets, other unclaimed assets not yet identified and community assets which already exist at the local level.

It is too early to specify in detail how such a fund would be managed and distributed. But our consultation suggests considerable consensus around the principles of a place-based model, long term funding, community control, national support and collaboration with other stakeholders.

A fund on this scale could deliver transformative social, economic and financial impact. It could also support community commissioned services, save assets, build new infrastructure, enhance democracy and build new relationships across society. We therefore recommend that civil society establishes an independent and credible taskforce, with the support and endorsement of Government, to take the Community Wealth Fund proposal forward over

the coming months. We look forward to playing our part in its development, creation and success.

Author: Severin Carrell, Scotland editor Guardian

A community attempt to buy land surrounding Scotland’s highest village, Wanlockhead, has suffered a serious setback after its £1.5m funding bid was rejected.

The Scottish Land Fund told the buyout campaigners earlier this week it had turned down their application for public funding, saying it was worried about the levels of local support and insufficient community consultation.

Wanlockhead Community Trust wants to buy 1,563 hectares (3,863 acres) of grazing, moors and brownfield land surrounding the village in Dumfriesshire from the property empire owned by the Duke of Buccleuch, one of the UK’s wealthiest hereditary landowners. In August, an independent valuation set a price of nearly £1.5m.

The fund’s decision is a setback for land reformers in southern Scotland, who hoped to see a hat-trick of buyouts from Buccleuch after the nearby communities of Newcastleton and Langholm moor purchased land holdings from him earlier this year.

The Wanlockhead group said its efforts to build up local support by staging public meetings had been hampered by the lockdown and subsequent social distancing rules imposed during the coronavirus pandemic, but it planned to submit a fresh bid next year.

Despite having cross-party support from local politicians, the buyout plan was backed by only 69 people, with 55 against it, after a village-wide vote in August. Second-home owners were not allowed to vote, under a convention to prevent absentee owners affecting buyout decisions.

The bid’s critics argue there is little need for the buyout, and it would have saddled the village with responsibility for assets and problems, including contaminated land, which Buccleuch Estates currently look after.

Unlike the two other successful bids, many villagers were unconvinced by the trust’s plans to invest in eco-tourism, camping, its well-known gold panning trade, and small businesses.

Lincoln Richford, the trust’s chairman, said the land fund had suggested they could reapply for funding next year but it is thought the fund’s decision document, which has not been published, advised the trust the the split in community support had to be addressed.

Richford said he believed the fund had rejected Wanlockhead’s bid because supporting it would have squeezed out 10 other applications. It is understood, however, that the fund had 32 applications and will announce later this month that nearly 30 have been successful.

In a short Facebook post, Richford said the land fund had criticised its application in a number of areas. “Hopefully before July [next year] we will be able to rectify that. WCT is in talks with [the fund] to clarify the points they raise, to see what course of action we need to take.”

He told the Guardian the trust could challenge some of the land fund’s statements but added: “There were some legitimate points that they have made.”

Buccleuch Estates is likely to take some time to consider its response. It decided to sell the land voluntarily after the community trust asked to buy it, and had not put it on the open market. Buccleuch is likely to press the trust to address the land fund’s criticisms.

A Buccleuch spokesman said: “We have had very constructive discussions with the trust to date and we will be in contact with them to understand and discuss the implications of the funding decision.”

Land reformers argue the Buccleuch buyouts highlight wider problems with underfunding of the Scottish Land Fund and a lack of other investment options. It has not yet been confirmed if the land fund will continue after next May’s Scottish elections.

The Langholm Initiative first hoped to buy 4,000 hectares for £6m, in what would have been Scotland’s most expensive community buyout, but was only able to buy half of that for £3.8m, after being unable to raise the remainder.

Author: Dr Simon Kaye

In our latest report, we look at the extraordinary work of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Prize-winning thinker and researcher who rewrote the book in the fields of economics and political science. The output from Elinor Ostrom’s decades of research offers cause for hope for the advocates of localism, community power and human potential.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the sheer extent of the UK’s over-centralisation. But just as importantly, our local response has shown how innovative and dynamic councils and civil society can be, and how willing neighbours and communities are to step up in the name of mutualism.

This feels like a moment of radical possibility, where we might reach beyond top-down norms and market-led solutions to try some very different approaches. To capture this moment, localists and advocates of community power need to join around a point of consensus, underpinned by an unarguable intellectual heavyweight.

And that is where Elinor Ostrom comes in.

In our new report Think Big, Act Small, we argue that Ostrom’s work could be the basis for a radically different approach to almost every aspect of policymaking, service delivery, and democracy in the UK, supported by a wealth of evidence from every part of the world. This adds up to a compelling argument about the value of democratic participation, the power of working up from the grassroots, the promise of systems and approaches that are smaller and closer to real people rather than centralised and one-size-fits-all.

Here are just a handful of the reasons why Ostrom is the thinker for our times.

1. Ostrom showed that the local is the cornerstone of real democracyThe Covid19 pandemic – and the troubled official response to its threat – has once again highlighted a longer-term national pathology: hyper-centralised politics, economics, and governance. A more local response could have capitalised on the expertise of local public health units, harnessed and magnified the strength of spontaneous mutual aid groups, and ratcheted up our capacity for test-and-trace.From an Ostromian lens, the kind of centralism that has become normal in the UK is more than a mere mistake. It represents a kind of misunderstanding about where true legitimacy comes from. For Ostrom, it was unthinkable that a single core administration could expect to govern a mass public, let alone control disempowered and under-resourced local authorities. Certainly no such arrangement could claim to be democraticin any very meaningful way.

   While some international and strategic questions should clearly be managed at the scale of legitimate national government, the overriding principle for all other issues should be that they are organised and decided upon at the smallest possible scale compatible with good outcomes.

2. Ostrom proved a way beyond big businesses and big statesIt sometimes seems like there will never be an escape from Westminster and Whitehall’s dual obsessions with big state and big business, or any meaningful recognition of the potential of community power.Ostrom demonstrated that entirely different ways of living and organising systems are possible. These aren’t abstract fantasies or academic theories. By working empirically, Ostrom demonstrated that communities can cooperate and design local systems to a much greater extent than conventional wisdom deemed possible.
3. Ostrom showed a way to navigate future crisesSome of the systems she studied had been in place, with no management or intervention from businesses or governments, for hundreds of years. And, in many cases, they were able to do this more efficiently, because there are enormous advantages when systems are designed by the people who really understand what is needed from them.The first 20 years of this century have been filled with challenges, but these may only be a first taste. Future shocks would best be met not by atomised and incapacitated localities, but by connected, mobilised, innovative communities with a strong social fabric.

   Think Big, Act Smalluses Ostrom’s analysis as a lens for a fresh look at the UK’s burgeoning community power movement. Diverse, trusting, and autonomous communities are alive in this country today. But their efforts – even when supported by civil society organisations, organised voluntarism, or very forward-thinking councils – face an uphill battle.

   In response, we offer recommendations to national and local government and to communities themselves: ways to distribute power and create space for community objectives and projects. The result would be better outcomes – for our over-burdened services and for both people who they serve.

   Ostrom’s work produced insights and lessons which have very real application as we face the challenges of ahead. We hope this report establishes how she provided the foundations for a shift towards community power at every level – and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Author: NCDC

Short film here

Northmavine is the northern glory of Shetland – a tourist paradise of spectacular coastal and inland scenery, wildlife, crafts, great food and drink. And welcoming people.

It’s also one of the most vibrant, hard-working communities in the isles. Fishing, aquaculture, crofting, seafood processing, tourism and of course, it’s home to the hurricane-proof Polycrub, the undercover growtunnel invented and produced by community interest company Nortenergy, a subsidiary of NCDC. Its community recycling centre enables waste and large household items to be dealt with locally.

NCDC exists to help Northmavine grow – economically, yes, but also socially and culturally. We are a local charitable company intent on making this community a better place to live, work, settle and bring up families, and we’ve existed in one form or another since 2004.

Windpower developments, bringing the Chelsea Flower Show Shetland Crofthouse Garden to North Roe, community Polycrubs, housing, the legendary Glusstonberry Festival, guidebooks, the Hillswick Community Shop, tourism initiatives, toilets and tourist facilities at the Collafirth Pier and more. NCDC has done a lot. And we’re keen to do more.

MORE

Author: Locality

The Communities in Charge campaign is a coalition of local people, community groups, businesses and national organisations calling for communities to be put directly in charge of the government’s post-Brexit fund for economic regeneration.

To help put communities in charge, we’re calling for:

• Resources to be made available to the people and places which need it most
• Local people to scrutinise all spending decisions through a dramatic increase in accountability, including citizen panels
• At least a quarter of the fund to go directly to local people to invest in their own priorities for the economy

Our report outlines the key policy detail of our proposal and the evidence that sits behind our case for putting Communities in Charge.

Download the Communities in Charge Report (.pdf)

Author: Connor Smith, LGIU Associate

Summary

The Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland details around £24 billion of major projects and large programmes. Whilst all the proposed infrastructure investment will inevitably impact local places (everything has to be built somewhere), there are a number of investments where tangible local socio-economic benefits are more readily recognisable and which will be discussed in this Swift Read. The plan also contains several proposals which could deliver significant environmental and health benefits, these too will be discussed in more detail in this brief.

Upon analysis, it is clear that the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan genuinely aspires to have a positive social, environmental and economic impact at local levels. Indeed, many of the proposals have the potential to achieve just that provided care is taken to ensure alignment with regional development priorities and strategies. This brief should be of interest to local authorities seeking further clarification on what infrastructure investment over the next parliamentary term may mean for them.

Briefing in full

Introduction

Scottish Government recently released the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland 2021-22 to 2025-26. Complimented with a £24 billion price tag and the catchy title ‘A National Mission with Local Impact’, the draft plan is packed full with infrastructure projects which, if realised, could have significant impact at local levels. This swift read will draw out the flagship proposals within the draft plan and discuss the implications that they may have for local government. This brief should be of interest to authorities seeking further clarification on what infrastructure investment over the next parliamentary term may mean for them.

Background

The draft infrastructure investment plan builds upon recommendations made by the ‘Infrastructure Commission for Scotland’, an independent body set up by ministers in 2019. The plan presents investments that the Scottish Government intend to deliver either itself or through its own agencies and non-departmental public bodies. It therefore does not include external investments by the UK Government or the private sector. Furthermore, it does not include investments made by councils.

It is also important to note that the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan has been released ahead of the UK spending review and confirmation of future budgets for Scotland. In other words, there is currently no guarantee that Scottish Government will be licensed with the fiscal flexibility to implement the entirety of the proposals detailed within the plan. However, with the cost of borrowing historically low and in the midst of significant challenges (not least climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic and the small matter of Brexit), the argument that there has never been a better time to invest in Scotland’s future will undoubtedly resonate with many.

The Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland 2021-22 to 2025-26

The Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan details around £24 billion of 
major projects and large programmes that, according to Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, are ready to be confirmed now. The plan is centred around 3 key themes, namely: Enabling the transition to net zero emissions and environmental sustainability; Driving Inclusive Economic Growth; Building Resilient and Sustainable Places. These themes link directly to Scotland’s National Performance Framework and the UN SDGs, whilst being closely linked to the National Planning Framework and soon to be updated Climate Change Plan.

The draft plan includes significant proposed investment including: active travel; decarbonisation of heat (including public sector estate); local authority recycling collection infrastructure and improved landfill gas capture; increasing forest cover; superfast broadband rollout; bridge and road maintenance; city region and regional growth deals; national islands plan; place-based investment programme; supporting Local Housing Strategies and regional development priorities; decarbonisation of Scottish Water; and, a Learning Estate Improvement Programme.

According to Scottish Government, the overarching themes and specific investments proposed have all been considered within the context of post-Covid-19 recovery and long term trends including climate change, technological developments, and demographic change. This includes specific reference to taking advantage of ‘a number of positive shifts as people’s lives became home-based, for example towards active travel or to make more use of digital services’.

Tangible local socio-economic benefits

Whilst all the proposed infrastructure investment will inevitably impact local places (everything has to be built somewhere), there are a number of flagship investments where tangible local socio-economic benefits are more readily recognisable, they include:

• £2.8 billion in direct capital grant funding, over 5 years, to deliver more affordable and social homes, continuing to ensure the right types of homes in the right places reflecting and supporting Local Housing Strategies and regional development priorities
• £525 million to deliver the next five years of city region and regional growth deals
• £275 million to support community-led regeneration and town centre revitalisation as part of a new Place Based Investment Programme
• £55 million to tackle fuel poverty (additional investment)

Building a more equitable future

A recently published report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation shows that poverty is on the rise in many parts of the UK, Scotland is no exception. The report goes on to state that increasing the provision of affordable housing (particularly social rent) constitutes one of the most effective responses available to try and reign in poverty (according to the report a significant factor keeping poverty levels in Scotland lower than in England is the relatively larger provision of affordable social housing that currently exists North of the border). With this in mind, the £2.8 billion investment in direct capital grant funding to build more ‘affordable and social’ housing will be welcome news for many. However, to maximise the positive impact of this investment, it is vital that Scottish Government ensure that development takes place with the support of local communities and authorities, whilst also supporting local housing strategies and regional development priorities as pledged. Furthermore, new developments should be future proof and high-quality to ensure a good living environment and operational savings for residents, as well as being consistent with the decarbonisation agenda.

It’s no secret that the last decade has not been kind on many Town Centres; empty high-streets lined with charity and pound shops have arguably become an archetypal image of social and cultural degradation in low-income areas. The Covid-19 crisis has only exacerbated this trend, keeping shoppers at home and accelerating the demand for online services. Taking this into consideration, £275 million to support community-led regeneration and town centre revitalisation as part of a new Place Based Investment Programme will also come as welcome news for many. Indeed, taken alongside the other proposed investments, this programme reinforces the participatory and well-being centred approach that much current Scottish Government policy eschews. However, given the severity of this challenge critics may argue that £275 million is only going to go so far.

Tangible environmental and health benefits

As well as tangible local socio-economic benefits, the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland also contains several proposals which could deliver significant environmental and health benefits, they include:

• £500 million over 5 years on active travel
• £350 million to increase forest cover, reaching 18,000 hectares of new woodland
• £95 million programme to decarbonise the public-sector estate
• £55 million new investment in energy efficiency
• £75 million to improve local authority recycling collection infrastructure, accelerate the land fill gas capture and improve waste data through electronic waste tracking
• £10 million annually for peatland restoration

Building a healthier future

Increasing active travel is widely recognised as a low regret approach to tackling a multiplicity of health and environmental ills; £500 million represents a significant investment and has clearly been conceived with the intention of capitalising on one of the few positive externalities of the Covid-19 pandemic. With regards to the £350 million investment to increase forest cover, this constitutes another low regret approach to address both health and environmental issues; as carbon sinks, biodiversity havens, and air purifiers, bigger forests and new woodlands can make a significant contribution towards reducing net greenhouse gas emissions whilst also improving the environmental quality for local residents and critters alike. Similarly, the peatland restoration programme has the potential to bring significant benefits, particularly in the environmental sphere. However, £10 million annually represents a much less significant investment.

Decarbonisation of the public-sector is imperative if Scotland is to meet its national and international commitments. Taking this into consideration, few are likely to object to the proposed £95 million programme to decarbonise the public-sector estate. However, despite clear alignment and coherency within the wider trajectory of current policy, some may argue that the investment lacks ambition and appropriate scale. Although, as noted, another £55 million has been proposed for new investment in energy efficiency taking the total of decarbonisation focussed proposals to £1.6 billion. Likewise, few are likely to object to the £75 million investment to improve local authority recycling collection infrastructure, accelerate the landfill gas capture and improve waste data through electronic waste tracking. Nevertheless, questions may again be raised regarding scale and ambition.

Implications for local government

As has been discussed, several of the proposals within the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland constitute low regret options that have the potential to reap significant social, environmental and economic benefits at the local scale. Most notably this includes investment in affordable, high-quality social housing, increasing forest cover, peatland restoration, public-sector estate decarbonisation and improved recycling infrastructure.

First and foremost, local authorities should do everything within their power to ensure that Scottish Government honour their pledge that investment will reflect regional development priorities; it would be disappointing (and damaging) if top-down implementation without community and council consultation were to lead to the wrong things being built in the wrong places. Furthermore, local government might evaluate their own capacity for undertaking infrastructure investment projects which incorporate one or more of the low regret, high benefit proposals discussed here. By doing so, local authorities can proactively tackle a range of social and environmental challenges whilst also (directly or indirectly) creating jobs which are much needed to drive a post-Covid-19 recovery.

Comment

• Upon analysis, it is clear that the Draft Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland genuinely aspires to have a positive social, environmental and economic impact at a local level. Many of the proposals have the potential to achieve just that provided care is taken to ensure alignment with regional development priorities and strategies.
• However, if there has never been a better time to spend (as the infrastructure plan seems to suggest), then questions may be asked regarding the scale and ambition of some of the proposals. This is especially true of proposals focussed on climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability.
• The Stern Review, one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken concerning the economics of climate change, concludes with one simple but terribly important finding: ‘the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting’.
• (Green) infrastructure investment, especially proposals which require a large workforce (e.g. increasing forest cover or energy efficiency upgrades), would also create a significant amount of labour-intensive jobs in the short-term. According to a recent report by the LSE, this would help to ‘address the large-scale labour market displacements as the Covid-19 crisis continues to unfold and crucially, to help avoid costly and damaging labour market scarring’.

Author: Thomas Martin

In ancient Athens, only the very wealthiest people paid direct taxes, and these went to fund the city-state’s most important national expenses – the navy and honors for the gods. While today it might sound astonishing, most of these top taxpayers not only paid happily, but boasted about how much they paid.

Money was just as important to the ancient Athenians as it is to most people today, so what accounts for this enthusiastic reaction to a large tax bill? The Athenian financial elite felt this way because they earned an invaluable payback: public respect from the other citizens of their democracy.

Modern needs, modern finances

Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. had a population of free and enslaved people topping 300,000 individuals. The economy mostly focused on international trade, and Athens needed to spend large sums of money to keep things humming – from supporting national defense to the countless public fountains constantly pouring out drinking water all over the city.

Much of this income came from publicly owned farmland and silver mines that were leased to the highest bidders, but Athens also taxed imports and exports and collected fees from immigrants and prostitutes as well as fines imposed on losers in many court cases. In general, there were no direct taxes on income or wealth.

As Athens grew into an international power, it developed a large and expensive navy of several hundred state-of-the-art wooden warships called triremes – literally meaning three-rowers. Triremes cost huge amounts of money to build, equip and crew, and the Athenian financial elites were the ones that paid to make it happen.

Triremes were the most advanced and expensive military technology of the ancient Mediterranean, and rich Athenians funded them out of their own pockets. Marsyas via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

The top 1% of male property owners supported the saving or salvation of Athens –called “soteria” – by performing a special kind of public service called “leitourgia,” or liturgy. They served as a trireme commander, or “trierarch,” who personally funded the operating costs of a trireme for an entire year and even led the crew on missions. This public service was not cheap. To fund their liturgy as a trierarch, a rich taxpayer spent what a skilled worker earned in 10 to 20 years of steady pay, but instead of dodging this responsibility, most embraced it.

Running warships was not the only responsibility the rich had to national defense. When Athens was at war – which was most of the time – the wealthy had to pay contributions in cash called “eisphorai” to finance the citizen militia. These contributions were based on the value of their property, not their income, which made them in a sense a direct tax on wealth.

To please the gods

To the ancient Athenians, physical military might was only part of the equation. They also believed that the salvation of the state from outside threats depended on a less tangible but equally crucial and costly source of defense: the favor of the gods.

To keep these powerful but fickle divine protectors on their side, the Athenians built elaborate temples, performed large sacrifices and organized lively public religious festivals. These massive spectacles featured musical extravaganzas and theater performances that were attended by tens of thousands of people and were hugely expensive to throw.

Just as with trieremes, the richest Athenians paid for these festivals by fulfilling festival liturgies. Serving as a chorus leader, for example, meant paying for the training, costumes and living expenses for large groups of performers for months at a time.

Proud to be paying

In the U.S. today, an estimated one out of every six tax dollars is unpaid. Large corporations and rich citizens do everything they can to minimize their tax bill. The Athenians would have ridiculed such behavior.

None of the financial elite of ancient Athens prided themselves on scamming the Athenian equivalent of the IRS. Just the opposite was true: They paid, and even boasted in public – truthfully – that they often had paid more than required when serving as a trierarch or chorus leader.

Of course, not every member of the superrich at Athens behaved like a patriotic champion. Some Athenian shirkers tried to escape their liturgies by claiming other people with more property ought to shoulder the cost instead of themselves, but this attempted weaseling out of public service never became the norm.

So what was the reasoning behind this civic, taxpaying pride? Ancient Athenians weren’t only opening their wallets to promote the common good. They were counting on earning a high return in public esteem from the investments in their community that their taxes represented.

This social capital was so valuable because Athenian culture held civic duty in high regard. If a rich Athenian hoarded his wealth, he was mocked and labeled a “greedy man” who “borrows from guests staying his house” and “when he sells wine to a friend, he sells it watered!”

 Social wealth, not monetary riches

The social rewards that tax payments earned the rich had long lives. A liturgist who financed the chorus of a prize-winning drama could build himself a spectacular monument in a conspicuous downtown location to announce his excellence to all comers for all time.

Above all, the Athenian rich paid their taxes because they craved the social success that came from their compatriots publicly identifying them as citizens who are good because they are useful. Earning the honorable title of a useful citizen might sound tame today – it didn’t boost Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign even though he describes his political role as “trying to make myself useful” – but in a letter to a Hebrew congregation in Rhode Island written in 1790, George Washington proclaimed that being “useful” was an invaluable part of the divine plan for the United States.

So, too, the Athenians infused that designation with immense power. To be a rich taxpayer who was good and useful to his fellow citizens counted even more than money in the bank. And this invaluable public service profited all Athenians by keeping their democracy alive century after century.

Author: Locality

COSLA has today launched a new Blueprint for Scottish Local Government.

The Blueprint will allow Local Government to build around an ambitious vision for Scotland’s future – one based on the empowerment of people and communities.

The document (which can be viewed here) has been framed around 6 themes,

• Strengthening Local Democracy
• Funding Services and Communities
• Wellbeing – including Health and Social Care
• Education and Children and Young People
• Economy and the Environment
• Supporting Vulnerable Communities

Speaking as he launched the Blueprint, Councillor Graham Houston COSLA’s Vice-President said:  “The Blueprint we are launching today provides a narrative around the kind of country we want, and about the changes that could make a real difference to communities across the country.

“Covid-19 has changed the way we live. But pre-Covid, through Covid and after Covid Local Government is the anchor for communities in need.  For children, young people and families; for local businesses; and for services that benefit our physical and emotional well-being and the environment. We work with communities and local organisations every day to bring about change and to make the voices of people heard and matter.”

Councillor Houston continued:  “The value of Local Government can be seen in our response to Covid-19, where Councils have taken decisive action to support communities, people, and businesses.

“Whether delivering food or medicine, providing shelter for the homeless, supporting volunteers or keeping many essential services running, Local Government has been the face of the response for many.

“The Local Government workforce, which is the largest in Scotland, has fundamentally changed the way it works to reduce the disruption caused to everyday life.

“Scottish Local Government must be further empowered to bring about the change we now need.

“The financial impacts of Covid-19 have been severe and have placed extreme pressure on already strained Council budgets and on our workforce.  Without proper resourcing we will see reductions in spending and inevitable cuts to services, furthering the inequalities highlighted by the pandemic and putting at risk the very recovery we seek.”

Councillor Houston concluded:  “Local Government, and the communities we serve, have shown the innovation and creative thinking needed to respond to this unprecedented pandemic and to adapt to a new way of life.

“We have proved our worth, we will continue to deliver and our Blueprint is the menu for change that Local Government now requires.”