Am I on to anything here?

A quick and random thought.

In my office every day I hear two very different views of the world.

On the one side is the world of technology, creativity, social enterprise, and philanthropy.

So much that is exciting is happening at the intersection of business, particularly new business, and social action.

Technology companies, internet billionaires, hedge fund tycoons, ex-presidents and vice-presidents seem to be striding the world setting up new foundations, creating networks, exploring new ways of engaging people in issues like climate change, conflict resolution and African poverty.

The pace of change in our society and the creativity of young people as the drivers of this change are breathtaking.

To hear all this it can surely only be a matter of time before a new and better world emerges...

And yet look at the other axis - between state and citizen, or between different states.

Here the big problems seem stuck or getting worse; disengagement, poverty, climate change, conflict.

In ten minutes before I dash of to the annual dinner of the RSA in Yorkshire I have no idea how to even think about this disconnect.

Is it that all the technology and big business billions are just drops in the ocean?

Is technological innovation really more about making money and pandering to shallow individualism than making the world a better place?

Is it that the state (like many large corporations) and international institutions are simply incapable of operating effectively in today's complex fast moving world?

The biggest challenges we face can only be met with the right interventions from the state - locally, nationally and internationally - but much of the dynamism in the world (the ideas, the technology, the people) is taking place well away from the formal sites of political authority.

Am I on to anything here?

And should the RSA be trying to find ways of thinking about and overcoming this disconnect?

• Simon Collister - 05 Jun 2008 1:39pm

  Absolutely spot on, Matthew. Couldn't agree more. Good work is happening at www.icthub.org.uk and MySociety but the Government and Institutions need to learn to fund and cede control to the grassroots. This is a challenge; as is devising failsafe ways to account for public funds. Business should have a responsibility to assist this process but the public/voluntary sector should be prepared to take risks.

• N.S.dalton - 05 Jun 2008 1:39pm

  Well perhaps it was the space but I believe your views on technological innovation are slightly skewed. As you said technology is capable of much social change but technological change is highly constrained. Firstly most new technology is highly risky that is failure is an inherent part of the process. Think about how many government software projects end in failure (CSA,NHS doctor assignment..) this is about standard for business world to but they get to cover them up. Business is capable of handling high risk but only with the expectation of high rewards. With out the legitimate prospect of high reward then interest soon dissolves ( Ever watched dragons den?). So yes technology might solve a number of problems ( higher standards of insulation for example against global warming ) but it is hard to convince the public and there for business to buy enough to cover the risk. Business is also myopic – I recently did a new technology ventures course and the London business school. In this we had to propose a technology to investigate as a student pilot project. I pitched the concept of a new (imaginary) very low cost wind turbine which if successful would change the whole green energy environment. I was surprised I had no takers, no business student was interested. I asked around and found the business people didn’t understand what I was talking about ( we had 2mins per idea) and had gone with something more familiar ( a new screen saver and a bio-tech project). I tried again with a new form of public transit that would make travel faster then a car journey and yet again was received with disbelief and this was a group were a business student had suggested a perpetual motion machine. Business people are specialists who try to minimise risk by going with the familiar. Only when we get green millionaires will this change. So yes to meet challenges we need to change the way we restrict funding and your idea is one of the ways of doing it.

• Ian Gilmour - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

  I heard Tim Smit talk once and he said that he was not one for traditional staff rules - for example, one he had put in place at the Eden Centre was that each member of staff was not able to start work until they had said hello to 20 people (strangers) before they got into the office

• Ben Bennetts - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

  You are definitely on to something, Matthew. I have a tangible real-life example for you - I've just e-mailed you a paper about it, from which you will see that the RSA has touched on several aspects of it, but has never got to the bottom of the real question about the relationship between the state, the individual and society. I have already put forward a project proposal which covers (I think) at least some of what you are talking about - see my hyperlink.

Please sign in below if you already have an account (your username will be your email address).

Don't have an account?

If you are a Fellow, please sign up for an account now to gain access to Fellows-only areas of our website.

Problems logging in? Forgot your password?

If you cannot login, or have forgotten your password, please go to our Password Reset page to change your password.

If this doesn't work, or you have any other queries regarding your account, just give us a call on +44 (0)20 7451 6927. Alternatively you can also email the Fellowship team.