The author, an FT contributing editor, is chief govt of the Royal Society of Arts and former chief economist on the Financial institution of England
The world is extra various and interwoven than ever earlier than — economically, culturally, ethnically, generationally. That is largely the results of the postwar explosion in cross-border flows of products and cash, folks and knowledge. For a lot of that interval, the advantages of globalisation had been taken as a right and garnered widespread fashionable and political help.
These days are gone. The query now being requested is whether or not elevated financial openness and connection are a supply of fragility relatively than flourishing, economically and societally. This can be a key level of departure between progressives (who emphasise the advantages) and populists (who emphasise the fragility). Each have some extent.
There isn’t any ecosystem on the planet that isn’t enriched by elevated variety. The complexity of rainforests and oceans explains their abundance. In social methods, the cross-pollination of concepts, cultures and practices in various communities has been a driver of innovation and dynamism for millennia.
But it is a double-edged sword. A rainforest or an ocean are weak to antagonistic arrivals similar to people looking for timber or fish. If cultures conflict relatively than cohere, various communities exhibit related fragility.
Each advanced system faces this balancing act, however it may be improved by strengthening ties and belief — what Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam calls social capital. The depletion of social capital over the previous half-century, documented by Putnam, has tilted the scales decisively in direction of fragility. At present’s open, linked economies are nested in brittle, disconnected societies. Neither can flourish like this.
One coverage response is to reverse financial course, tightening restrictions on cross-border flows of individuals, items, applied sciences and knowledge. Whereas economists (like me) inform us that doing so would diminish financial dynamism, given these insurance policies handle the insecurities felt by many at supply, it’s no shock they’re gaining help — particularly round immigration and commerce.
However there may be one other — arguably more cost effective, actually much less explored — method of reaching the identical finish: dialling up social coverage relatively than dialling again financial coverage. Social capital can grow to be a golden thread woven all through public coverage, from well being to housing, training to place-making.
Many organisations already run programmes to construct social cohesion and curb delinquent behaviour. US Senator Chris Murphy has proposed a nationwide technique for social connection. However no nation has but put in place a complete, cross-cutting nationwide programme for social cohesion with ambition commensurate with the problem.
A greater map of the territory is essential — too usually, coverage motion is taken at the hours of darkness and information on social capital is patchy. What is required first is a brand new set of nationwide accounts, centered on social capital. Latest analysis by Raj Chetty, who has developed extremely granular maps of social capital, supplies a glimpse of what’s attainable.
Social ties are finest established early in life. As work by Chetty et al exhibits, networks solid in youth are the important thing to unlocking upward mobility. However our present training methods are extra usually a recipe for social stratification than mixing. That requires a radical rethink of curricula and extracurricular actions, and academic entry standards, to make social connection a fore relatively than afterthought.
Subsequent, unplanned city sprawl has contributed considerably to the Balkanisation of communities. In future, social cohesion needs to be on the coronary heart of spatial planning. LSE professor Richard Sennett has proposed sociable housing, connecting disconnected communities via blended tenure residences, communal areas and an improved public realm. There are already examples in Japan, Scandinavia and elsewhere.
Social capital is constructed on robust social infrastructure — faith-based establishments, youth golf equipment, neighborhood centres, parks, sports activities and leisure amenities, libraries and museums. But funding in social infrastructure is meagre relative to bodily and digital infrastructure. Reprioritisation and reinvestment are overdue.
If citizen belief is to be rebuilt, new fashions of governance are wanted too. Citizen panels and juries are efficient in constructing belief and cohesion in various communities. But they’re removed from the democratic mainstream. In a return to the unique Greek mannequin of democracy, community-led coalitions might play a central position regionally.
As well as, mainstream and social media are a key conduit for each social connection and, more and more, social division. Many international locations are legislating to keep away from on-line hurt. However too little is being performed to help on-line good the place it nurtures social cohesion. Public service broadcasters and regulators have an important position to play in doing so.
Lastly, each revolution (even a coverage one) wants management. An Workplace of the President or Prime Minister, charged with lacing social cohesion via coverage, needs to be hard-wired into the equipment of governments.
In The Upswing, Putnam confirmed how social capital was constructed within the first half of the twentieth century, earlier than being depleted within the second. We are able to repeat these successes via cross-cutting nationwide programmes of social cohesion that talk on to the insecurities felt by so many. This could sign a decisive shift in capitalism itself — in direction of a “social capitalism” capable of bridge disconnected communities, progressives and populists, the me and the we.