How to get out from me to our community

The author, a contributing editor of the FT, is chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts and a former economist at the Bank of England.

The world is more diverse than ever – economically, culturally, racially, ethnically. This is largely due to the post-war explosion in the flow of goods and money, people and information. For most of that time, the benefits of globalization were taken for granted and received widespread popular and political support.

Those days are over. The question being asked is whether increased economic openness and connectivity is a source of weakness rather than prosperity, both economically and socially. This is an important point of departure between progressives (who emphasize advantages) and populists (who emphasize fragility). Both have a point.

There is no ecosystem in the world that is not improved by increased diversity. The complexity of forests and oceans explains their abundance. In social systems, the exchange of ideas, cultures and practices between different societies has been a driver of innovation and strength for thousands of years.

However, this is a double-edged sword. Rainforests or oceans are vulnerable to predators such as people looking for trees or fish. If cultures clash instead of uniting, different communities show the same weakness.

Every complex system faces this balancing act, but it can be improved by strengthening ties and trust – what Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam calls social capital. The decline in public spending over the past half century, written by Putnamtipped the scale firmly to weak. Today’s open, interconnected economies rest on unstable, fragmented societies. Nor is it successful in this way.

One policy response is to reverse the economic trend, tightening restrictions on the cross-border flow of people, goods, technology and information. Although economists (like me) tell us that doing so will reduce economic power, given that these policies address the insecurity of many people from the source, it is not surprising that they find support – especially in relation to immigration and trade.

But there is another – arguably cheaper, less well-researched – way to achieve the same end: creating social policy rather than reverse economic policy. Community cities can become a golden thread woven throughout social policy, from health to housing, education to zoning.

Many organizations already run programs to build social cohesion and prevent bad behavior. US Senator Chris Murphy proposed a national plan for social networking. But no country has yet created a comprehensive, diverse national program for social cohesion with the intention of meeting the challenge.

A better map of this area is essential – often, policy actions are taken in the dark and data on socio-economics is not useful. What is needed first is a new set of national accounts, focused on public finances. A recent study by Raj Chetty, who created the granular maps of social economy, it gives a glimpse of what is possible.

Social relationships are best established when a person is young. As Chetty et al’s work shows, youth-based networks are key to unlocking upward mobility. But our current education systems are often more a form of social isolation than integration. That requires a rethinking of curriculum and extracurricular activities, and ways of accessing education, making social connection a priority rather than an afterthought.

Subsequently, the unplanned fragmentation of cities contributed greatly to the Balkanization of nations. In the future, community gathering should be at the heart of spatial planning. LSE Professor Richard Sennett made the proposal friendship housing, connecting disconnected communities through mixed housing, community spaces and improved public space. There are already examples in Japan, Scandinavia and elsewhere.

Community centers are built on strong community structures – faith centers, youth groups, community centers, parks, sports and recreation centers, libraries and museums. Yet investment in public services pales in comparison to physical and digital infrastructure. Prioritization and return on investment are overdue.

If public confidence is to be restored, new forms of governance are also needed. Citizens’ panels and councils are effective in building trust and cohesion in different communities. However they are very far from democracy. Returning to the original Greek democracy, public-led coalitions can play a central role locally.

In addition, mainstream and social media are an important means of social connection and, increasingly, social fragmentation. Many countries are enacting laws to prevent online harm. But very little is being done to support the benefits of the internet where it promotes social cohesion. Public service broadcasters and regulators have an important role to play in doing so.

Ultimately, every revolution (even strategy) needs leadership. The Office of the President or the Prime Minister, which is responsible for bringing together the unity of the people through policies, should be firmly embedded in the government system.

To The UpswingPutnam showed how the nation’s capital was built up in the first half of the 20th century, before it declined a second time. We can repeat those successes with various national programs of social solidarity that speak directly to the insecurity felt by many. This will show a decisive change in capitalism itself – to a “social capitalism” capable of bridging a divided society, progressives and populists, me and us.