Community wealth (and health) building
This article originally appeared in the Municipal Journal.
The purpose of our economy should be to generate good lives and wellbeing for all, and, in CLES’s final Community Wealth Building Conversation at the end of November, we got to hear first-hand about the myriad ways in which this progressive approach to economic development is helping to deliver better health outcomes for people and communities, through the actions of key anchor institutions. Three things stood out from the conversation.
First, there is growing evidence of impact.
Recent research by the University of Liverpool, University of Central Lancashire, Lancaster University and us here at CLES, shows that community wealth building in the city of Preston, for example, is having a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of its residents.
Famously, the Preston model includes support for local businesses through supply chains and increased living wage employment, as well as a number of other economic interventions. Our research found that, during the period in which this programme was introduced, there were fewer mental health problems than would have been expected compared to other similar areas, as life satisfaction and economic measures improved. The introduction of the programme was associated with a 3% decline in antidepressant prescribing, and a 2% decline in the prevalence of depression, along with a 9% improvement in life satisfaction, and an 11% increase in wages, compared to expected trends.
“key enablers”
Second, the power and resources that combined authorities now have can be key enablers of community wealth building practice, particularly in relation to employment, skills and business support.
For example, fair employment charters are being used by the majority of mayoral combined authorities to elevate employment standards across sub regions and encourage a more equitable distribution of opportunities.
“kinder, fairer and more democratic”
Interventions to encourage the development of more social enterprises, co-operatives and community businesses have also been adopted to create kinder, fairer and more democratic local economies. These have the potential to narrow health inequalities through their effects on the experience of work and who has access to it. In South Yorkshire, for example, the Combined Authority has piloted the UK’s first Ownership Hub, promoting worker co-operatives and employee ownership. With support from Power to Change, Liverpool City Region has invested £6.5m to support the development of local socially trading organisations. With this funding they have established Kindred – a new investment and development vehicle, owned and run by the sector, that is now providing business support and funding to local community businesses. Most recently, with funding from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Co-operatives UK is in the process of establishing Our Business. This online platform will enable social economy businesses to start and grow by providing training, support and peer connectivity. In addition, the platform will promote social economy products and services to other businesses and public bodies across the sub region.
Third, despite the numerous examples of progressive practice, the broader argument around the importance of using economic intervention to achieve better health outcomes is not yet won.
While many would agree that, with the right kind of intent – and action – our economy can play a key role in creating health and wellbeing through its impact on the wider determinants of health, these sentiments are not ubiquitous. Indeed, recent narratives are detracting from this aim, with some commentators arguing that new Local Growth Plans shouldn’t be concerned with inclusivity as this can act as a barrier to growth.
“a grave mistake”
But, to narrow the focus of our economic strategies and row back from inclusivity would be a grave mistake. Recent lessons from how our city regions have developed is that the failure to prioritise an inclusive economy can end up locking people out of the proceeds of growth, which risks making things like health inequalities even worse.
Fortunately, we don’t have to treat economic development and health creation as separate priorities. As the above examples highlight, with community wealth building we have an alternative economic blueprint that can deliver us both broad and inclusive economic growth and address health outcomes and inequalities in tandem.
