Katherine Scott Notes for Social Architecture Introduction University of New Brunswick, June 2005 I have had the tremendous privilege over the past two years working on the Funding Matters initiative, coming out to Moncton, Halifax, St. John – talking to community and voluntary sector advocates across the country about the promise and the challenges in the nonprofit and voluntary sector. It is an extraordinary experience to do a piece of research that helps bring the everyday lived experience of communities to live. Because, for me, that is the purpose of doing grounded social and economic research. It is not about sitting in an ivory tower – but reaching out and connecting with people around key social and economic issues. Issues like poverty, gender equality, the well-being of Aboriginal peoples. It’s about making a difference. Our new social architecture series is about making a difference as well. Because the issues raised in the Funding report around the health and vitality of nonprofit organizations is intricately connected to the broad structures of the Canadian welfare state. All too often we approach the study of public policy from the top or the bottom, from a micro / community-level perspective or from a macro / pan-Canadian perspective. We need to make the connections – to understand the relationships as Yves reminded us – in order to affect change. Canada faces long-term, structural forces that are unlikely to go away. If we as a society fail to respond, fail to make the connections, we run the risk of higher levels of social and economic polarization, the entrenchment of a marginalized underclass, and declining overall levels of social and economic well-being and prosperity. We need new thinking because the ideas, relationships and institutions that have defined Canada’s social welfare mix between market, state, family and community over the past 30 years are ill-equipped to address the current challenges. The disjuncture or disconnect between the social welfare mix and the major social and economic trends is graphically illustrated in rising levels of income inequality, particularly among new immigrant and Aboriginal families. Many families and households now struggle to secure living wages while attempting to reconcile the demands of family and community life, yet others enjoy a life of affluence increasingly distant from the majority. Community services are hard-pressed to sustain programs and services in the face of increasing demands. The capacity of many to contribute in ways that they values remains a critical human rights challenge. Governments in Canada, as elsewhere, are struggling to address challenges to their systems of social protection while at the same time, aspiring to be a more innovative and competitive force in the new global, knowledge-based economy. But while the demand for change is pressing, the way forward is not as clear. Long-term structural problems are not likely to correct themselves on their own, and tinkering around the edges of individual policies and programs is similarly unhelpful in light of the fast pace of change and the range and complexities of current social and economic challenges. A fundamental rethinking of the post-war welfare edifice is needed, a new social "architecture" to create an inclusive and prosperous Canada. The timing is right, as we emerge from a period of under-investment in the social infrastructure from the past and a relative absence of investments in new social experiments to respond to new social and economic challenges. The primary concern of post-war social reformers was how to ensure full employment (the "foundation"), not the creation of generous social programs. If one could ensure that the majority (of adult males) were employed at decent wages for most of their lives, societies could afford generous social programs to deal with the social risks (illness, disability, fluctuations in the business cycle) that led to spells of unemployment or permanent exit from the labour market. Rising productivity meant more revenues were available to build schools and health care institutions (one of the major achievements of the 1950s and 1960s) that, in turn, raised the educational levels and health status of the population, leading to further productivity gains – a virtuous circle. The challenge today is to identify a new "virtuous circle" – a set of policy and program strategies that are mutually reinforcing moving forward. An "architecture" is a structural design or plan "that imposes order, balance and unity upon a work or entity", that relates the parts of a structure to each other and to the whole, and articulates how the whole works together (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). For policy purposes, it is a useful metaphor as it stresses the interconnection of structure and function; it is hard to imagine an architecturally sound house without considering the foundation or the heating system, for instance. At the same time, the architectural metaphor may convey too much if it implies a sense of finality, a level of foreknowledge and absence of uncertainty that is unrealistic in this or any other historical period. Policy-making is a matter of experimentation, invention, and a great deal of learning-as-you-go and puzzling in the face of uncertainty. As in the world of science and commerce, where many (and even the majority) of new experiments and businesses fail, long-term successful policy innovation requires no small amount of courage and a willingness to take risks (and to expect failures). There is no road map to the "good society". Nevertheless, if the metaphor of architecture forces us to think holistically about social policy – to relate the parts to the whole … to think about forging connections – it will have served its purpose. To imagine that Canada can eliminate child poverty through income transfers in the absence of a dynamic labour market for young adults (or vice versa) is simply naïve. To imagine that we can produce a dynamic labour market through more education and training (a "supply side" strategy) without being concerned about the quality and availability of jobs for new labour force entrants (the "demand side") is hardly a credible strategy in light of recent history. To assume that we can tackle the challenges of social care in a market economy without placing gender equality at the centre of our considerations guarantees failure. The goal, then, is to build a house better suited to Canada’s needs and opportunities, one that acknowledges and strengthens the relationship between families, communities, market and the state in the provision of social welfare. The goal, then, of our architecture series to challenge and probe "the world we have", in order to frame / inspire a dialogue about "the world that we want". Redrawing a blueprint for a vibrant, grounded social architecture, one that is comparable to and as innovative as what was developed in the post-war period of the last century, is both an exciting and daunting task. These papers being launched tonight and those to come – from both the CCSD and our partners – are meant to spur discussion about how to create a more equitable and inclusive Canada. A broad range of people and organizations will be encouraged to join in this dialogue over the coming months. Our intent is to create a venue or platform to discuss concrete proposals for change. So stay tuned … In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. John Myles, Marcel Lauziere and Andrew Jackson – and the rest of advisors on our Reference Group. John in particular has debated and discussed the direction of this and the forthcoming paper on a new social architecture – for a very long time indeed. I have certainly learned a great deal and highly value their support and inspiration. And, so to you … I look forward to your comments and feedback as we proceed with this initiative. Thank you again.