1.

Executive summary
(Theoretical synthesis)

Articles: The people, the commons and the public realm and Building a new
social commons by Anna Coole

Summary:

(First article): The perspective of the commons tries to challenge orthodox market economies and
presents a radical different role for the state. The concept of the commons is a useful tool for progressive
change-makers. Whether we are concerned with land or wealth, or with water, energy, transport, fisheries,
parks or libraries, the commons enables us to think through a range of important issues, including
ownership and control and the links between top-down and bottom-up politics. The idea to build power
among people to own and co-produce a story of commons. These common resources are not a priori
but achieved by political action and collaborative organization. They are not concessions. The process of
commoning is decided by the people with collective action, shared by all and with relation with the state.
Processes that is decided within and outside the expert circles.

(Second article): Our proposition builds on the radical vision set out in People, Planet, Power: towards a new
social settlement (Summary and link at the end of this paper). We recognise that top-down solutions wont work,
and that change must be driven from the local level, inspired by everyday wisdom and experience. In
particular, the concept of social commons recognises the vital link between natural and social resources.
Just as everyone needs land, air and water in order to survive, so everyone needs education,
health and social care, housing, decent paid work and an adequate living income in order to
participate in society and to flourish. This implies that people have a right to such resources, which
can be asserted and defended. The perspective of the commons is urgent due to how public institutions
no longer inspire much confidence. Four reasons why it is urgent to build a new social commons: As an
expression of social solidarity, reduction of inequalities, can underpin sustainable development, can
anchor progressive social policies. The realization of this approach will be through dialogue. This is
a key feature of our proposal. The main mechanism for dialogue could be a spread of peoples assemblies
(or citizens forums or juries)

Theoretical Influences (Between The commons approach and the main perspectives
mentioned in the article):

1. Foundational economy
Definition Differences
A redefinition of the neoliberal The importance of not only
economy. The need for a economic capital but also a
grounded economy, which perspective that includes a
places an emphasis on the number of rights in their
distribution of mundane good perspective. Such as positive
and services essential for rights, political rights, procedual
civilised life, rather than the rights.
pursuit of growth only in
certain high-tech industries
(Adamsen, 2015: 4) Examples
Wales (A Collaborative
Economy for the Common
Good: The case of Wales)
2. Social wealth fund Collectively-owned pools of Not only economic resources
wealth that ensure that a higher but also natural, cultural,
proportion of economic activity economic and social resources.
is socialised, with the returns
shared across the population.
Such funds act as a counter to
the private ownership of capital
and ensure that their proceeds
are used for wider community
benefit, such as investment in
social infrastructure.
3. Social and solidarity Refers to enterprises and
economy (SSE) organizations, in particular
cooperatives, mutual benefit
societies, associations,
foundations and social
enterprises, which specifically
produce goods, services and
knowledge while pursuing
economic and social aims and
fostering solidarity.
4. Universal Basic Income This would be an unconditional
(UBI) payment made to everyone. A
universal basic income would
create rights-based social
security, altering the logic of the
system and ascribing a different
meaning to benefits by
providing them as a right for all
Not only a combination of self-
generated locally controlled
initiatives but a relation
between the people and the
local government. (P.4).
Reimaging social resources, not
as top down services
delivered by the state to the
people, but as activities and
relationships, co-design and co-
produced by people and
professionals (P.5).
UBI is an individualised
measure, not a collective one,
focusing resources on
providing money to individuals
rather than on pooled risk-
sharing mechanisms that
provide help for everyone when
they need it. It serves to
atomise and monetise peoples
needs, fitting neatly with the
prevailing economic paradigm
rather than promoting social
solidarity, collectively funded
services, and shared solutions
The complex underlying
causes of inequalities, ill
health, social conflict,
unequal access to the labour
market, and non-financial
barriers to social
participation require
upstream systemic changes,
rather than a single monetary
intervention.
Theoritical background (Reports that influenced the articles published by Anna Coote):

1. Power, Planet, Power: Towards a new social settlement (2015). Link:

http://goo.gl/eVDV3W

a. Summary: In this report we (New Economic Forum) offer proposals for

moving towards a new social settlement that is able to meet the challenges of
the twenty- rst century. It is NEFs contribution to current debates about how
we live together and shape the future, our relationship with each other and
with government, the role of the welfare state, and the quality of everyday life.
This settlement has three main goals: social justice, environmental
sustainability, and a more equal distribution of power.

Objectives of the proposal are: Plan for prosperity without economic growth,
Shift investment and action upstream to prevent harm, Nurture the core
economy and Foster solidarity Our aim is to get people thinking afresh, talking
to each other, and envisaging a different kind of future from the one we are
heading for today.

Proposals: Rebalance work and time, Release human resources, Strengthen

social security, Plan for a sustainable future

b. Written by:

i. James Angel - social policy researcher at the New Economics

Foundation. - (AWA1: Moving beyond the market: a new agenda for
public services. Link: http://goo.gl/bbsi5A)

ii. Daniel Button - researcher at NEF. His work covers health and care
focusing particularly on health inequalities and the role of community
control - (AWA2: Inequality in elmbridge Link: http://goo.gl/yBHsgj)

iii. Jane Franklin - social policy researcher at the New Economics

Foundation - (AWA3: TIME ON OUR Side. link:
http://goo.gl/34vo2C)

iv. Eliane Glaser - social policy researcher at the New Economics

Foundation. (AWA4: If ideology is dead, how can the new politics find
its voice? Neoliberalism and the crisis of politics. Link:
http://goo.gl/J7kPXB)

1 AWA: Articles writen by the author

 v. Ian Gough - London School of Economics: Centre for the Analysis of
Social Exclusion (CASE) - (AWA5: Basic human needs: what are they?.
Link: http://goo.gl/J7kPXB)

vi. Sara Lyall - NEF's social policy expert. (AWA6: Big care providers are
wasting taxpayers money. Link: http://goo.gl/SuQ6eM)

vii. Julia Slay - Social Policy team at NEF (The New Economics Foundation)
-