Counting the cost of bowling alone
In his RSA CEO Lecture 2025, Andy Haldane highlights how weakened social bonds harm communities in our connected world. He calls for a rebuilding of trust and unity, addressing issues like economic growth, equity, and wellbeing. Andy’s vision offers hope to counter growing divides and create stronger, more resilient societies.
Multiculturalism is under the microscope. Rarely a day passes without evidence of economic, social and political divisions widening, trust in governments and institutions waning, the social fabric fraying. This has been underway for over half a century.
But over the past decade, ever-larger cross-border flows of goods, people and information have widened these divisions and accelerated the depletion of what is called social capital.
Over the same period, research has found the costs of this fraying of the social fabric to be enormous, for individuals, communities and countries. Indeed, the depletion of social capital may be among the biggest causes of some of today’s greatest societal scourges – from low growth to stalled social mobility, from the epidemic of loneliness to our crumbling (and, on occasion, rioting) communities.
The policy response to these problems has so far been wholly inadequate. Among progressives, there has often been wilful blindness to the social costs and popular discontent associated with multiculturalism. Among populists, these costs and discontent can only be countered by rolling back economic, social and cultural integration – for example, through restrictions on trade and immigration.
Both sides have a point but neither has an adequate solution. Fortunately, there is an alternative course that would protect multiculturalism’s benefits (which are real and considerable), while curtailing its costs (which are real and considerable too). This would come from a national programme to rebuild social capital, a strategy which for its success must straddle every aspect of public policy.
‘Social connection’ is the golden thread throughout the RSA’s programme this year. It needs urgently to become the golden thread running through public policy generally if we are to repair our social fabric and tackle society’s greatest scourges. I want to sketch some of the contours of that policy programme in the hope governments everywhere rise to the challenge of what I call the ‘Great Division’.
The great division
Had I been on this stage a century ago, I would indisputably have been the finest macro-economist alive. That is because, a century ago, there was no such thing as macroeconomics. Economics had at that stage been around for well over a century. But economists’ tools for understanding and managing the economy at a macro level – statistically, conceptually, practically – were at best piecemeal and patchy.
What changed things, durably and decisively, were two tumultuous macroeconomic events: the Great Crash of 1929 and, in its aftermath, the Great Depression of the 1930s. The exigencies of these crises ushered in a policy revolution whose key pillars were the National Accounts (for measuring the economy), macro-economic theory (for understanding the economy) and monetary and fiscal policy frameworks (for averting future tumult).
A century on, we are all macro-economists now – armchair or otherwise. Small movements in GDP and inflation dominate public discourse. Taxes, interest rates and government spending shape political and public debate. Bond yields regularly master, and sometimes murder, politicians. A weak economy or high cost of living guarantees political ruptures, as the jettisoning of incumbent governments last year illustrated.
Underlying this has been a worsening of the economy’s prospects. Low growth means stasis in worker pay packets and harsher societal choices, including public services. So too does a higher cost of living. Both generate fear and foreboding (or loathing) among the public. A century on, some fear we could be on the cusp of worse still – another Great Crash or Great Depression.
While either is possible, the greater risk is a different Great: a further widening of the ‘Great Division’ – the cleaving apart, within and between our communities and countries, that has taken place over the past half-century. This has resulted in a rising tide of disconnection and mistrust among citizens and communities. And it has had increasingly disruptive consequences, locally, nationally and internationally.
The Great Division can be seen globally in the increasing numbers of wars, both real and trade-related, and the escalating international arms races in defence spending, tariffs and immigration restrictions. It can be seen nationally in the fractious and polarising elections that took place in 2024. It can be seen locally in the loss of pride in place in communities, manifest in anti-social behaviour or even rioting.
It is sometimes said we have entered an era of deglobalisation with flows of goods, information, finance and people in retreat after the halcyon post-war era of ever-greater integration of economies and societies. And the pace of global integration has indeed slowed notably this century. But so far at least, reports of the death of globalisation are exaggerated and obituaries for it premature.
Flows of goods and especially information, finance and people are in fact at or are close, to historical high-water marks. There is no time in human history when the global cats-cradle – economic, financial, social – has been more intertwined. Yet at the same time, this interwoven web has rarely felt more fragile. Our hyper-connected world seems increasingly disconnected. What explains this paradox?
The double-edged sword of diversity
The answer can be found in the dynamics of complex systems whose moving parts interact in complex ways. Uncertainty is intrinsic in these systems. So too is fragility. Whether natural or social, complex systems exhibit a ‘flourishing-yet-fragile’ property. Diversity is a double-edged sword. Public policy is about striking the right balance between the forces of flourishing and fragility.
On the benefits side, there is no ecosystem on the planet, natural and social, not enriched by diversity and complexity. In natural systems, the diversity and complexity of rainforests and oceans explain their richness and abundance. By contrast simple eco-systems, such as tundra or deserts, are stable but barren, starved of richness and dynamism.
The same applies in social systems. From the earliest civilisations, the cross-pollination of ideas, cultures and practices which arise naturally in multicultural communities has been the engine of human innovation and progress. By contrast, monocultural communities have tended to be stable but have neither innovated nor evolved at a rapid pace.
Empirical studies suggest increased flows of goods, people, money and ideas are beneficial to both sides of the exchange, stimulating innovation and growth. This century, the emergence of the World Wide Web has cross-pollinated ideas and practices at a faster pace and greater scale than ever previously. Pretty much everyone, everywhere has benefitted.
Yet every complex, diverse system has a dark side. The very complexity and diversity of a rainforest or ocean makes them vulnerable to cascading collapse when hit by a large, adverse shock – the arrival of antagonistic entrants such as timber or fish-seeking humans. The collapse in natural ecosystems over the past century, with levels of biodiversity falling by almost three-quarters, bears testimony to that.
The same is true in social systems. The more complex and interconnected, the greater their fragility in the face of large, adverse shocks – the arrival of new entrants with different cultures and practices. Multiculturalism, without accompanying trust and cohesion, is a recipe for cultural clashes and fragility. And for all its benefits, the World Wide Web can amplify this fragility by promoting misinformation and social division.
There is, then, a tightrope to walk between the forces of flourishing and fragility in diverse, interwoven societies and environments. This balance is not, however, immutable. It can be altered, for good or ill, by policy action. The resilience of the world’s rainforests and oceans can be improved by policies that replenish the stock of natural capital through international regeneration projects such as the COP initiatives.
The balance between fragility and flourishing can be modified in complex, diverse communities too. Their resilience can be strengthened by building social capital – the strength and depth of networks of trust and relationships. The stronger these relationships, the larger the stock of social capital and the greater the resilience of social systems.
Reality, alas, has played out rather differently. As Harvard political scientist Bob Putnam pointed out at the start of this century in Bowling Alone, there has in fact been a sharp depletion in social capital over the past half-century in the US. This has been accompanied by a rise in individualism, isolation and anti-social behaviour – hence Bowling Alone.