The writer is a contributing editor at the Financial Times, chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts and former chief economist at the Bank of England
The world has become more diverse and interconnected than ever before – economically, culturally, ethnically and generationally. This is largely due to the post-war explosion in cross-border flows of goods, money, people and information. For most of that period, the benefits of globalization were taken for granted and gained broad popular and political support.
Those days are over. The question now is whether increased economic openness and connectivity are a source of fragility rather than economic and societal prosperity. This is a key point of difference between progressives (who emphasize benefits) and populists (who emphasize fragility). They both have a point.
There is no ecosystem on the planet that is not enriched by increasing diversity. The complexity of rainforests and oceans explains their abundance. In social systems, the cross-fertilization of ideas, cultures, and practices in diverse societies has been a driver of innovation and dynamism for thousands of years.
However, this is a double-edged sword. Rainforests or oceans are vulnerable to hostile invaders such as humans searching for timber or fish. If cultures collide rather than cohere, diverse societies exhibit similar fragility.
Every complex system faces this balance, but it can be improved by strengthening relationships and trust – what political scientist Robert Putnam of Harvard calls social capital. The depletion of social capital over the past half century It is documented by PutnamThe scales tipped decisively towards fragility. Today's open and interconnected economies are located in fragile and disconnected societies. Neither of them can flourish in this way.
One policy response is to reverse the economic course, tightening restrictions on cross-border flows of people, goods, technologies and information. Although economists (like me) tell us that doing so would reduce economic dynamism, because these policies address the insecurities that many feel at the source, it is not surprising that they are gaining support – especially on migration and trade.
But there is another way – perhaps less expensive, and certainly less explored – to achieve the same end: activating social policy rather than reducing economic policy. Social capital can become a golden thread woven into various aspects of public policy, from health to housing, from education to placemaking.
Many organizations already run programs to build social cohesion and reduce anti-social behaviour. US Senator Chris Murphy proposed a national social media strategy. But no country has yet developed a comprehensive and comprehensive national program for social cohesion with ambition commensurate with the challenge.
A better map of the region is crucial – too often, policy actions are taken in the dark and data on social capital is incomplete. What is needed first is a new set of national accounts, focusing on social capital. Recent research written by Raj Shetty, who developed very accurate maps Social capital, offers a glimpse of what is possible.
It is best to establish social connections early in life. As work by Shetty and others shows, networks formed in youth are key to unlocking upward mobility. But our current education systems are more often a recipe for social stratification than mixing. This calls for a radical rethinking of curricula, extracurricular activities, and standards for access to education, to make social communication at the forefront rather than an afterthought.
Subsequently, unplanned urban sprawl contributed significantly to the Balkanization of communities. In the future, social cohesion should be at the heart of spatial planning. LSE professor Richard Sennett suggested sociable Housing and connecting segregated communities through mixed tenure housing, shared spaces and improved public realm. There are already examples in Japan, Scandinavia and elsewhere.
Social capital is built on strong social infrastructure – religious institutions, youth clubs, community centres, parks, sports and leisure facilities, libraries and museums. However, investment in social infrastructure is minimal compared to physical and digital infrastructure. Reprioritization and reinvestment are long overdue.
If we want to rebuild citizens' trust, new models of governance are also required. Citizens' panels and juries are effective in building trust and cohesion in diverse communities. However, they are far from the democratic mainstream. In returning to the original Greek model of democracy, community-led coalitions can play a central role at the local level.
In addition, mainstream media and social media are a major channel for social communication and, increasingly, for social division. Many countries are creating legislation to avoid online harm. But little effort has been made to support goodness online as it enhances social cohesion. Public broadcasters and regulators have a vital role to play in doing this.
Finally, every revolution (even political revolution) needs leadership. The office of the President or Prime Minister, charged with promoting social cohesion through policies, should be embedded in the machinery of governments.
in AscensionPutnam showed how social capital was built in the first half of the twentieth century, before being depleted in the second half. We can replicate these successes through comprehensive national social cohesion programs that directly address the insecurities felt by many. This would signal a decisive shift in capitalism itself – towards a “social capitalism” capable of bridging the gap between disconnected communities, progressives and populists, and the ego and us.
