The Local Government Association has just published a report, ‘From Recession to Recovery: the Local Dimension’ that analyses the local effects of a recession and the impact of the economic slowdown on towns and cities, regions and sub-regions in England.
The report predicts the following:
- The hardest hit industries will be construction and manufacturing whilst high skilled industries look set to remain relatively unscathed.
- The recent growth of big northern cities means they are relatively well placed to cope with the effects of the recession.
- Almost two in five jobs that could be at risk over the next two years are in London and the South East.
- Even within specific regions there are likely to be marked differences in how particular localities fare.
It warns that a national, blanket policy to deal with the recession will be unable to target help effectively to specific areas. Instead, it calls for as many economic decisions as possible to be taken at a local level to ensure that local solutions can be found to local problems. As major employers, purchasers and providers, the report argues that councils are best placed to revive local economies and help people in need.
Caroline’s article outlines a number of interesting developments within the campaigning landscape and raises some important questions for campaigning organisations to think about as they plan their future work.
I would like to pick up on a few key themes:
- Giving is not the same as activism
It is important to distinguish between fundraising campaigns and campaigns for social change. Whereas Children in Need and Comic Relief are ultimately large scale fundraising efforts, Make Poverty History and Stand Up and Take Action are about securing commitments to social and economic change. They are therefore essentially different in what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to mobilise individuals i.e. whether to give or to act.
The distinction between giving and activism is an important one. In fact, campaigns like Make Poverty History have been premised on the fact that charity in its traditional sense of the word is simply not enough. MPH was a campaign about social and economic justice that demanded wholesale changes in the global economic system in order to address the underlying causes of poverty – not simply throwing more money at the problem.
Whilst there are obviously important links between giving and activism – individual giving can provide a pathway into activism and vice versa – campaigning organisations need to appreciate the differences between the two, be clear what their campaigns are trying to achieve and target activities appropriately.
- Campaigning is not just about awareness raising
A second important distinction to make is between awareness raising and campaigning. Raising the profile of pressing social, economic and environmental issues forms a critical element of any campaign; how can individuals take action if they don’t know what the problem is in the first place? However, informing people and getting an issue on the agenda is not the same as bringing about change: it is a means to this end rather than an end in itself.
Recent large-scale campaigns have made great strides in raising the profile of certain issues, be it global poverty, the Iraq War or climate change. Their messages have reached parts not reached before. However, the ultimate measure of their success, is not based on the number of celebrity endorsements received, wristbands worn or concerts given, but on whether they actually secure the changes they want to see.
-The rise of the globalised individual
The article raises a really interesting issue about the rise of individualism and its impact on campaigning. If recent large-scale campaigns have illustrated anything, it is that there are a lot of passionate, opinionated individuals out there who have a vision about the world they want to live in and a commitment to making it happen. So whilst engagement with formal party politics might be on the wane, political activism in its broader sense certainly isn’t.
These campaigns have also shown it is possible to mobilise a much younger demographic than ever before. This presents huge opportunities for campaigning organisations to engage with this ready-made audience. However, this is not without its challenges. Trends suggest that the modern day activist is more likely to engage in campaigning on an issue-by-issue basis, rather than through formal affiliation with a particular institution or organisation. What this means in practice is that individuals may campaign on climate change in a personal capacity but might not necessarily become a member of an environmental organisation. This more fluid, individualised approach to campaigning could have major implications for membership-based campaigning organisations that rely on an active supporter base – and membership fees – for their existence and success.
Campaigning organisations also need to consider how they engage with the modern day, globalised activist. Local campaign groups may give way to virtual communities on Facebook and Bebo, public meetings to Twitter and traditional marches to flashmobbing. To what extent are campaigning organisations making the most of new communication technologies to reach out to new audiences?
- Size doesn’t matter
Where I think the article slightly misses the point is talking about small scale campaigning in the same breath as individualism. Individualised campaigning may result in more localised forms of campaigning, but it may equally result in large scale campaigns (is not the recent Obama election campaign an example of this?).
Whether you are acting alone, with a small group or as part of a global coalition, is beside the point. The same goes for whether you are trying to change the whole world or your little bit of it: it’s not the size of your campaign that matters; it’s what you do with it that counts!
Or to end with the rather more eloquent words of Margaret Mead,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Rachael
The Local Government Association has just published a report, ‘From Recession to Recovery: the Local Dimension’ that analyses the local effects of a recession and the impact of the economic slowdown on towns and cities, regions and sub-regions in England.
The report predicts the following:
- The hardest hit industries will be construction and manufacturing whilst high skilled industries look set to remain relatively unscathed.
- The recent growth of big northern cities means they are relatively well placed to cope with the effects of the recession.
- Almost two in five jobs that could be at risk over the next two years are in London and the South East.
- Even within specific regions there are likely to be marked differences in how particular localities fare.
It warns that a national, blanket policy to deal with the recession will be unable to target help effectively to specific areas. Instead, it calls for as many economic decisions as possible to be taken at a local level to ensure that local solutions can be found to local problems. As major employers, purchasers and providers, the report argues that councils are best placed to revive local economies and help people in need.
Rachael
Caroline’s article outlines a number of interesting developments within the campaigning landscape and raises some important questions for campaigning organisations to think about as they plan their future work.
I would like to pick up on a few key themes:
- Giving is not the same as activism
It is important to distinguish between fundraising campaigns and campaigns for social change. Whereas Children in Need and Comic Relief are ultimately large scale fundraising efforts, Make Poverty History and Stand Up and Take Action are about securing commitments to social and economic change. They are therefore essentially different in what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to mobilise individuals i.e. whether to give or to act.
The distinction between giving and activism is an important one. In fact, campaigns like Make Poverty History have been premised on the fact that charity in its traditional sense of the word is simply not enough. MPH was a campaign about social and economic justice that demanded wholesale changes in the global economic system in order to address the underlying causes of poverty – not simply throwing more money at the problem.
Whilst there are obviously important links between giving and activism – individual giving can provide a pathway into activism and vice versa – campaigning organisations need to appreciate the differences between the two, be clear what their campaigns are trying to achieve and target activities appropriately.
- Campaigning is not just about awareness raising
A second important distinction to make is between awareness raising and campaigning. Raising the profile of pressing social, economic and environmental issues forms a critical element of any campaign; how can individuals take action if they don’t know what the problem is in the first place? However, informing people and getting an issue on the agenda is not the same as bringing about change: it is a means to this end rather than an end in itself.
Recent large-scale campaigns have made great strides in raising the profile of certain issues, be it global poverty, the Iraq War or climate change. Their messages have reached parts not reached before. However, the ultimate measure of their success, is not based on the number of celebrity endorsements received, wristbands worn or concerts given, but on whether they actually secure the changes they want to see.
-The rise of the globalised individual
The article raises a really interesting issue about the rise of individualism and its impact on campaigning. If recent large-scale campaigns have illustrated anything, it is that there are a lot of passionate, opinionated individuals out there who have a vision about the world they want to live in and a commitment to making it happen. So whilst engagement with formal party politics might be on the wane, political activism in its broader sense certainly isn’t.
These campaigns have also shown it is possible to mobilise a much younger demographic than ever before. This presents huge opportunities for campaigning organisations to engage with this ready-made audience. However, this is not without its challenges. Trends suggest that the modern day activist is more likely to engage in campaigning on an issue-by-issue basis, rather than through formal affiliation with a particular institution or organisation. What this means in practice is that individuals may campaign on climate change in a personal capacity but might not necessarily become a member of an environmental organisation. This more fluid, individualised approach to campaigning could have major implications for membership-based campaigning organisations that rely on an active supporter base – and membership fees – for their existence and success.
Campaigning organisations also need to consider how they engage with the modern day, globalised activist. Local campaign groups may give way to virtual communities on Facebook and Bebo, public meetings to Twitter and traditional marches to flashmobbing. To what extent are campaigning organisations making the most of new communication technologies to reach out to new audiences?
- Size doesn’t matter
Where I think the article slightly misses the point is talking about small scale campaigning in the same breath as individualism. Individualised campaigning may result in more localised forms of campaigning, but it may equally result in large scale campaigns (is not the recent Obama election campaign an example of this?).
Whether you are acting alone, with a small group or as part of a global coalition, is beside the point. The same goes for whether you are trying to change the whole world or your little bit of it: it’s not the size of your campaign that matters; it’s what you do with it that counts!
Or to end with the rather more eloquent words of Margaret Mead,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Rachael
how about campaigning or the campaigning environment?