Juliette Wilson
A Timely Intervention? Time Banks as a Solution to ‘Social
Exclusion’
Time banks are a specific type of community group which uses a banking
mechanism to record and reward reciprocity with the aim of valuing people
equally on the time that they give and receive. Time is used as a communistic
unit of currency and members exchange hours of activity such as music
tuition or gardening for which they received ‘time credits’ which can be
exchanged amongst group members. The time broker is the only member of
staff required to run a time bank and they are responsible for recording
accounts and stimulating activity by promoting and creating exchange
opportunities. Research shows that Time banks reduce ‘social exclusion’ and
raise social capital, and as such the UK government has supported time bank
initiatives through short term funding and promotion. In the UK time banks are
being implemented in diverse areas of social provision such as mental health,
housing associations, immigration, youth offending, rehabilitation of prisoners,
elderly mentoring schemes etc. Whilst all time banks in the UK begin using
top-down approach running on short-term funding to pay the time broker,
most have the aim of quickly becoming a self-sustaining community enterprise
without the need for sustained funding. Via a theoretical discussion, the
argument of this paper is that due to cuts in social provision, time brokers
become ‘street-level bureaucrats’ managing a diverse array of social issues
through the work of the community, and that without professional training,
sustainable funding, and specific aims, this activity exploits the work of the
community via an ideology which misrepresents the causes of the problems.
The Time Bank Origin and Mechanism
Time banks have been operating in the UK since 1998 and there are currently 307
active time banks (Timebanking UK, 2012). Time banking is a growing activity and in
the UK time banks have almost tripled in number over the last 4 years from 109 in
2008 to 307 in 2013 (New Economics Foundation, 2008, p13; Timebanking UK,
2013). Registered time banks in the UK have at present 25743 members who have
exchanged 1885119 hours (Timebanking UK, 2012). Further, time banking is an
international movement and time banks operate in countries across the world
including America, Canada, Holland, Tasmania, Australia, New Zealand and Spain.
Time banks are thus a new, but rapidly growing, social initiative which requires
consideration.
Time banks are a community initiative devised by American Civil Rights Lawyer, and
political activist, Edgar Cahn. Time banking works by bringing people from a
geographical community together to exchange skills and services without the need
for money. Time bank communities tend to be constrained by geographical location
due to the practicality of meaningful and sustainable exchange between people from
outside of a general locality. The concept of time banking is communistic in that one
hour of one member’s time is valued as equal to one hour of all other members’ time.
1
Juliette Wilson
When a member performs an hour’s service they receive one time credit (Time
Dollar in the USA), this then acts in a similar fashion to money and can be ‘banked’
or exchanged with another member. For example, Freda provides an hour’s
gardening for Gayle and receives a time credit, Freda then redeems her time credit
and uses it to ‘purchase’ one hour’s computer tuition from Gary and so on.
Essentially a time bank provides a means to record and facilitate reciprocal
exchanges of services between a geographical community of people who do not
necessarily know each other, or would not normally engage in a relationship of
exchange with each other, without the use of money. Time banks are facilitated by a
time broker who records the transactions and credits and assists with setting up and
stimulating the exchanges, as well as the administration of the group. Time banks
can potentially run with only one member of staff, the broker, and can serve an entire
community within geographical limits. Along with the time bank members, the time
broker is a crucial element of the time bank model, and research has shown the
need for well-trained professional time brokers for the successful running of a time
bank (Seyfang, 2009). Despite this, funding is often short-term with the aim of
becoming unfunded and self-sustaining. Time banks then, are a community
programme which utilises a time broker and people of a community to facilitate and
encourage the exchange of services, whilst valuing people equally.
Time Bank Philosophy
Time banks were devised as a social programme to address social issues which
require relatively low levels of funding. Specifically, Cahn (2000) developed time
banks to address the deficit he saw in the market economy, which is that the market
economy does not value all the ‘work’ in society which enables both society and the
market to function. Cahn argues that social issues such as juvenile delinquency,
unemployment, impoverished neighbourhoods etc. are caused by an undervaluing of
non-market ‘work’ which is not recognised by the current economic system. Nonmarket ‘work’ such as raising children, keeping families together, building
communities etc., it is argued, have the potential to alleviate such social issues if
they are properly valued. Time banks then, were developed as a mechanism to
value non-market ‘work’ and thus alleviate social issues through supplementing the
economic system. In this regard Cahn (quoted in Kelly, 2007) argues:
‘This [time banking] looks beyond traditional economics to contend that we
must develop a new set of values based on families, communities and civil
society, and which places value on raising children, keeping families together,
taking care of elderly people, and making the planet sustainable - all deemed
worthless in the market economy, but essential to enable our communities to
thrive.’
Here Cahn stresses the ignorance of the market economy to, and worth of, what he
has defined elsewhere as the ‘core economy’. The ‘core-economy’ is also referred
to as the non-market economy, that is, the work done within society such as raising
children, which is not counted as, nor rewarded with, paid employment. The ‘coreeconomy’ is therefore the economy of the necessary but unpaid ‘work’ which
2
Juliette Wilson
supports the market economy. In fact research has shown that more time in the UK
is spent engaging in unpaid than paid work (Williams & Windebank, 2003). Further,
‘Unpaid work, i.e mothering, in 1997 was estimated to be at least as much as £341
billion or as much as £738 billion (120 per cent of GDP)’(Levitas, 2005, p8). There is
no space for the discussion of ‘work’ definitions in relation to gender, class and
ethnicity but it is important to note that core economy ‘work’ is unpaid and
undervalued due to discriminatory conceptions of work which negatively affect these
groups. It is also emerging that core economy work is socially and materially
valuable, and as such, in a society which values money and paid employment there
is now need for incentives in order to stimulate this ‘work’ which was previously
engaged in through discriminatory practices. Essentially, the time bank philosophy
recognises that the core-economy is neglected by the market economy, but that
there is a reciprocal relationship between them with each being essential to the
other. The aim of time banking is to stimulate and value the core economy ‘work’ via
the introduction of time credits and ‘co-production’ in order to support the market
economy and alleviate social issues.
The method of Time Banking: ‘Co-production’
The method via which time banks operate is ‘co-production’. In order to revalue the
‘core-economy’ ‘co-production’ is the central process of time banks. ‘Co-production’
is defined as:
‘[…] a construct: a framework designed to realize four core values. […] an
asset perspective, redefining work, reciprocity and social capital. [italics
original]’ (Cahn, 2000, p31)
Co-production in timebanking is the means by which people are viewed in terms of
what they have rather than what they lack (asset perspective). Secondly, it requires
that the unpaid ‘work’ of the core-economy is valued and important (redefining work).
Thirdly, it means that services cannot occur without those they serve and as such
those people should be valued for their contribution (reciprocity). Fourthly, it means
valuing and investing in the bonds between families, communities, people (social
capital). Co-production is central to the philosophy of time banks and its important is
evident in time bank promotional material (see: Rushey Green Time Bank, 2013;
Islington Time Bank Network, 2012; NHS Lewisham, 2012). Writing for the New
Economics Foundation( NEF) Coote (2011), argues that:
‘Co-production is an idea whose time has come. […] By changing the way
we think about and act upon ‘needs’ and ‘services’, this approach promises
more resources, better outcomes and a diminishing volume of need. It is
as relevant to third-sector bodies as to government institutions and public
authorities. Applied across the board and properly supported, it can help
realise the best ambitions of the ‘Big Society.’
Coote presents co-production as an ethos which involves a perceptual shift, and
makes reference to how it applies to UK government policy in the form of the ‘Big
Society’ directive. Co-production then, is the method via which time banks seek to to
elevate the value of core economy ‘work’ in order to stimulate it. It is proposed that
3
Juliette Wilson
co-production, in recognising the importance of both parties involved in any service
exchange, will raise the importance of those engaging in core economy ‘work’ and
thus stimulate these activities. It is also evident that co-production and time banking
have a place within UK government policy and social provision.
UK Government Policy and Time Banks
In the UK there is a history of support for community exchange schemes for
example, Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) (Williams et. al., 2001). LETS
were largely supported by government as a method of helping the unemployed into
paid employment and they functioned in almost exactly the same manner as time
banks without the communistic hour for an hour pricing philosophy. Support for
LETS, and LETS groups have declined whereas time banks are growing. For a
discussion of why this change in support may have occurred see North (2006, p8),
who argues that time banks have a ‘less resistant ethos’ than LETS. That is, LETS
provided an alternative way of organising economic exchanges which was critical of
the mainstream economy, and time banks provide an alternative way of organising
economic activity in order to support weaknesses of the mainstream economy.
Therefore it would appear that UK governments support some alternative economic
activity but only when acting as an activation policy for employment, and not when
they have an explicitly resistant ethos. As such, time banks are currently supported
over LETS.
New Labour provided the initial government support for time banking with Tony Blair
(Quoted in: NEF, 2001, p2) stating:
‘As a nation we’re rich in many things, but perhaps our greatest wealth lies in
the talent, the character and idealism of the millions of people who make their
communities work. Everyone – however rich or poor – has time to give... Let
us give generously, in the two currencies of time and money.’
New Labour, through the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), championed the idea of time
banks as a route to employment, and as a means for boosting declining participation
in volunteering (ESRC, u.d). Essentially time banks were viewed as a possible
solution to the issue of ‘social exclusion.’ Although definitions are not in agreement
academically, ‘Social exclusion’ is largely defined as a process which actively
excludes rather than simply marginalises the poor, and is indicated by declining
levels of social cohesion (Winlow & Hall, 2013). This paper will refer to social
exclusion using the latter complex definition of an active and multi-facetted process
which is caused by structural inequalities. It has been argued however, that
government policy and narrative in relation to ‘social exclusion’ often reduces the
concept to that of unemployment which leaves structural inequalities largely
uninterrogated (Lund, 2002; Levitas, 2005, p7). Arguably this narrower definition is
demonstrated by the change in government support from LETS to time banks; LETS
addresses social cohesion and is actively critical of structural inequities, whereas
time banks similarly address social cohesion but are not explicitly critical. Thus
4
Juliette Wilson
government support for time banks becomes a cost-effective method of tackling
some of the symptoms of social exclusion without an acknowledgment of the causes.
The support for time banking has been continued by the current Conservative and
Liberal Democrat coalition government; ‘Volunteering and time banking is for
everyone’ (HM Government, 2012). The coalition supported Timebanking UK via
Funding from the Office of Civil Society (OCS) until 2011 (Timebanking UK, 2012),
and the government run Big Society Cooperative offers up to £200 for start-up time
banks’ insurance costs, and up to £500 to fund promotions (Big Society Cooperative,
2013). The government’s Big Society Capital ‘bank’ funds social enterprises (Big
Society Capital, u.d), and aims to:
‘Support the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and
social enterprises, and enable these groups to have much greater
involvement in the running of public services. (Cabinet Office, 2010, p3)’
Further, the Department for Communities and Local Government has provided
funding for time banks to deliver English Language tuition in communities
(TimeBank, 2013). Essentially time banking fits into ‘The Big Society’ flagship policy
directive of the current government, because it promotes communities working
together to alleviate social issues. In defining ‘The Big Society’ the government (HM
Government, u.d) states:
‘We want to give citizens, communities and local government the power and
information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and
build the Britain they want. We want society – the families, networks,
neighbourhoods and communities that form the fabric of so much of our
everyday lives – to be bigger and stronger than ever before. Only when
people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility
can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all.’
In line with Pressman & Wildavsky’s (1984) argument ‘The Big Society’ policy
presents as a broad statement of intention, aims and objectives however:
‘Policies imply theories. Whether stated explicitly or not, policies point to a
chain of causation between initial conditions and future consequences. If X
then Y.’ (Pressman & Wildavsky, pxxiii)
The Big Society policy either implies the theory that the problems of society are
created on a local level, or that the problems of society should be solved on a local
level with the refusal to consider structural causes. In any case, as a chain of
causation Big Society policy explicitly calls upon individuals and communities to work
together in a move away from public welfare provision, to solve the social issues of
the UK.
Crucially, if time banks are social enterprises which are to be used to address the
government’s narrower definition of social exclusion, that is unemployment, it
represents a move by the government to sub-contract out and reduce responsibility
for routes to employment. Indeed this would represent a shift in the role of central
government as the role of the largest government department, the Department for
Work and Pensions, has up until now had the priority of: ‘helping to reduce poverty
and improve social justice’ and ‘helping people to find and stay in work (Department
for Work and Pensions, u.d). In a parallel to the duality of the core and market
5
Juliette Wilson
economy relationship, that is that the core economy is supportive of, but devalued in
comparison to, the market economy, solving social exclusion becomes the
responsibility of the devalued and disenfranchised public sector through social
enterprises. The public sector, and the arms of the public sector working with the
socially excluded, in effect starts to be pushed out of mainstream responsibility, and
becomes a devalued institution, in the same manner as the core economy activity.
For example, Nick Hurd, The Minister for Civil Society states: ‘The public spending
‘cake’ will shrink but the slice available to civil society organisations will increase’
(quoted in Social Enterprise Network, 2010). Marginal offerings are made to those
doing what it would seem is viewed as less valuable work. UK governments
therefore, have, and do, support the implementation of time banks as a means to
realising policy objectives of reduced social exclusion and de-centred social provision
however, simultaneously there is a reduction in public spending without a reduction in
public need, and there is a shift in the responsibility for, and value of, public services.
The Evidence-Base for Time Banking
Undoubtedly government interest in time banks is related to the prevention of, or
reduction in, need for government welfare provision. As Lund (2002) recognises,
there has been declining support for so-called welfare in the UK since the 1970s. Big
Society rhetoric explicitly calls upon communities to solve their own problems, and it
is a fair conclusion that these communities will increasingly be expected to rely upon
community members and the core economy rather than the state. Consequently, if
government policy and social provision is to be provided through time banks it is
important to examine the evidence-base for this. In relation to social provision Coote
(2011) makes reference to the preventative nature of co-production, which through
building social capital is reported to reduce social exclusion, and thus the need for
services in the first instance. Cahn (2000) provides the example of Elderplan, an
American healthcare provider which reduces premiums for members who are time
bank members. Elderplan offer this because they believe that customers who are
time bank members will have fewer health problems and thus make fewer claims.
This is an example of the market economy recognising the value of the ‘coreeconomy’ in real terms through time banking. Cahn, Coote, and presumably the UK
government ascribe to the view that time banks raise social capital, which feeds into
the literature on social capital as a factor in reducing social exclusion and thus
reducing the burden on social provision (Helliwell et al. 2013; Wilkinson & Marmot,
2003). ‘Co-production’ however, is a term which already relates to the field of public
service provision. In a report for the Local Authorities and Research Councils’
Initiative (LARCI) Barker (2010, p2) states:
‘Co-production is essentially about the delivery of public services being
shared between the service provider and the recipient. Therefore, coproduction is nothing new – essentially all services involve some involvement
of service users. What makes this issue topical in the current financial crisis is
the expectation that effective user and community involvement may help to
improve outputs, service quality and outcomes and reduce costs for local
government.’
6
Juliette Wilson
Here, as voice of local government co-production is heavily aligned with saving
money and states nothing about recognising the value of the core economy. This
demonstrates the potential pitfalls of time banking as a method of social provision
given that the aims could very easily be co-opted by the aims of reducing costs.
Thus, whilst logically the increased social capital leading to reduced need for social
provision seems plausible given that time banks work by building relationships
between people so that they co-produce services and value each other equally, it is
important to examine the time bank specific research and to think theoretically about
the whole process.
Current research demonstrates the positive effects of time banks on reducing the
social exclusion of groups who are defined as ‘socially excluded’ (see: Seyfang,
2003; Seyfang, 2006; Reilly & Cassidy, 2007; Lasker et. al., 2011). For example,
Seyfang (2003, p5):
‘These research findings indicate that time banks are an innovative
mechanism for channelling informal social support and engaging socially
excluded groups in community activities, to nurture social exclusion.’
These findings confirm the research trend that time banks alleviate social exclusion.
In America Lasker et. al. (2011) researched a time bank network and found the
highest participation to be from those on low incomes who were not working full time,
and the greatest attachment to be from women and people with less education. They
concluded that time banking may be valuable in building the social capital of older
and lower-income individuals. With funding from the Scottish goverment Reilly and
Cassidy (2008) researched five time banks and found that members’ social capital,
self-confidence, community contact and skills increased, they also found that
participants were more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups. However,
although there may be positive effects on social exclusion such as raised social
capital, in terms of positive effects on other dimensions of social exclusion such as
poverty Warne & Lawrence (2009) argue that there is little evidence of timebanking
providing a route to employment and the evidence there is, is limited and anecdotal.
In reality this may mean that time banks reduce the social exclusion of members and
enable them to cope with the structure of society, rather than revaluing their
contribution. Time bank research is in the early stages, but the research confirms
positive effects for engagement from socially excluded groups however, this may not
address the financial aspect of social exclusion.
If time banks alleviate social exclusion, and are to be used as part of government
policy in tackling social exclusion it is important to understand how this is being
achieved. In a UK-based evaluation project of time banks Seyfang and Smith (2002)
found that 67% of time bank users were women and 58% were from low income
households. Whilst Seyfang & Smith (2002) found that time banks were effective at
stimulating voluntary activity from non-traditional volunteers such as those on
incomes under £10,000 per annum. Time banks as a manifestation of government
policy actively seek to recruit socially excluded groups, time bank members, then,
7
Juliette Wilson
are in the majority women, and or those on a low income. It then becomes difficult to
understand why, if time bank ‘work’ is valuable for alleviating social exclusion, these
socially excluded groups which in the majority involves women and those on a low
income, should remain unrewarded financially for this ‘work’. Further, findings from
the author’s initial stages of research show a large rate of participation from migrant
and minority ethnic groups. Thus time banks disproportionately engage people in
‘work’ along gender, class and ethnic lines and as such exploit their efforts in this
new form of social provision taking responsibility for routes to employment.
Academics have argued that social programmes such as time banks divert need and
provision away from public services, and as such risk being co-opted by
governments wishing to divulge risk and leave the current system uninterrogated
(Leyshon & Lee, 2003; Amin, Cameron & Hudson, 2003; Gregory, 2010). In relation
to this Coote (2011) comprehensively addresses the exploitative issue of
governments advocating for ‘grass-roots’ ‘self-help’ initiatives which do not address
structural inequalities:
‘The lesson is that responsibility for tackling poverty and inequality cannot be
left solely to those who are disadvantaged and disempowered. Resilience –
the ability to deal with life’s problems – is an important component of
individual well-being, but promoting it is not an alternative to removing the
systemic barriers that produce those disadvantages.’
Cutting through the innovation of time banks to the root of the issues, the danger
inherent in this type of reorganised public service provision is that risk is divulged
from the state, and that those adversely affected by inequalities which
disproportionately affect those of certain genders, classes and ethnicities experience
exploitation without a proper consideration of broader inequities and how this will
ultimately serve to maintain their devalued position.
An example of a currently government backed time banking initiative is The Skills
Exchange (TSE) in Nottingham. The government has pledged funding for the TSE
time banking initiative for three years in order to start the project running. The
funding then ends and the aim is for the time banks to continue providing services for
the community without any financial cost to the state (Partnership Council, u.d).
Further, discussions with time bank staff suggest that they are wary of Big Society
schemes, suggesting that they require too much bureaucracy for little gain
(application forms requiring ‘university essays’). They also suggested that short term
funding of time bank schemes may lead to time banks starting and then failing in
quick succession resulting in a negative view of time banks. A further example which
confirms the short term financial commitment of the government to time banks is the
withdrawal of Office for Civil Society (OCS) funding in 2011:
‘TimeBank’s Chief Executive, says: “TimeBank is extremely disappointed not
to continue as a Strategic Partner of the Office for Civil Society. This decision
will hugely undermine the government’s vision for a Big Society’ (Timebanking
UK, 2012).
8
Juliette Wilson
Thus the short term financial support for time banks, and the longer term vision for
free running public services appears to be driven by the Big Society policy which
requires socially excluded groups to work towards their own social inclusion without
the support and resources of the state. Levitas (2005) argues that government
solutions to societal problems, such as the problems presented by Cahn (2000) in
the relationship between the market and core economies, do not address the larger
issue of structural inequality. If the activities/work of those who disproportionately
experience social exclusion are important and valuable to the market economy it is
difficult to defend the logic of why the total wealth of that economy is not distributed
more equally throughout the population. The original aim of time banks is about
equality, but in practice time banks may be co-opted by government commissioning
and Big Society policy which do little to redress the structural inequalities. It is in this
context that time bank staff are working, and it is in this context that these individuals
are called upon to enact government policy.
Time Banks as a contemporary case of ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy’
‘Street-level bureaucracy’ in terms of Lipsky (2010) refers mainly to the ways in
which social programmes or social services interact with citizens to enact
government policy. This definition is not confined to public run services but also
encompasses contracted out services such as those provided by time banks. For
Lipsky these institutions become the intermediary through which government policy
becomes reality, and that these institutions, through the discretion of the workers
(street-level bureaucrats), shape that policy into what becomes the reality of policy.
‘[street-level bureaucrats] socialize citizens to expectations of
government services and a place in the political community. […] Thus, in a
sense street-level bureaucrats implicitly mediate aspects of the constitutional
relationship of citizens to the state. In short, they hold the keys to a dimension
of citizenship.’(Lipsky, 2010, p4)
Thus, for Lipsky it is through street-level bureaucracies and street-level bureaucrats
that government policy meets the public and becomes the real manifestation of
policy, and as such it is an important place for understanding what it is to be a citizen
in relation to the state. In fact, street-level bureaucracies become the site of
experiencing the relationship between state and citizen. Further, street-level
bureaucracies become a site for developing population management strategies as
opposed to addressing wider structural issues such as income inequalities.
‘The public service sector plays a critical part in softening the impact of the
economic system on those who are not its primary beneficiaries and
inducing people to accept the neglect or inadequacy of primary economic and
social institutions.’ (Lipsky, 2010, P11)
As previously argued time banks work with even more limited and short-term funds
than public services, and in the current economic and political climate are expected
in some sense to provide reorganised public services. Indeed time banks, as streetlevel bureaucracies become the manifestation of Big Society policy which is people
9
Juliette Wilson
and communities alleviating social exclusion and providing public services without
the sustained investment of the state. Further, in softening the neglect or inadequacy
of primary and economic and social institutions by reducing social exclusion, and as
a site of understanding the relationship of citizen to the state, time banks become a
method for controlling the expectations of citizens and socialising them to act in a
particular manner. For example, Lund (2002, p20) describes the services that time
banks provide as ‘In Kind services;’ that is services which attempt to ameliorate
inequalities by providing services rather than money, Lund also recognises that
these types of provision have the propensity to shape subjects into the ‘ideal citizen’.
Time banks for example, would appear to address the state definition of social
exclusion in that they maintain the unemployed in a process of ‘work’ when they are
unable to find paid employment, and thus make them work-ready and available as a
‘reserve army of labour’. In the absence of appropriate paid employment this
socialises time bank members into ‘ideal citizens’ who mimic the activity of the
government defined socially included. However, time brokers do not necessarily fit
all Lipsky’s criteria for street level bureaucrats in that they have relative autonomy
over their role, and the value of time bank members, or ‘service users’ in Lipsky’s
terms is recognised through co-production. Time brokers also hold relatively little
power over members, although they do need to adhere to certain funding
requirements. Further, due to greater autonomy it would seem that the time broker
role suffers less from the alienating aspects described by Lipsky. Indeed, street-level
bureaucrats, it would seem, are now less neatly defined than in Lipsky’s initial work
(see also Rice, 2012; Evans, 2011). Thus time banks, and time bank staff, are
contemporary, sub-contracted out, manifestations of street-level bureaucracy which
soften the impact of government policy whilst also implementing it and maintaining
social control over citizens.
An important aspect of Lipsky’s (2010) argument is that due to the human nature of
their position street-level bureaucrats use personal discretion whilst implementing
government policy. Lipsky argues that discretion means that policy and resources
are distributed in-line with the street-level bureaucrats’ personal opinion rather than
necessarily equitably and in-line with policy; ‘In summary, the inability to measure
street-level bureaucrats’ performance has widespread implications for controlling the
agencies (Lipsky, 2010, p53).’ Thus for Lipsky, the difficulty in measuring work and
outcomes poses a problem for governments wishing to quantify the effects of policy
implementation. However, it may be that discretion is a positive aspect of the role of
street-level bureaucrats for example, time brokers have some control over their work
and how policy is enacted in that they are able, to some extent, to respond the
individual needs of members. Although, it must also be recognised that the time
bank system is inherently quantifiable, and that time credit balances and records of
transactions may serve as a means for measuring performance. As the result of
research with social workers Evans (2011) argues that Lipsky is too reductionist and
that professionalism in roles such as that of social workers guides their personal
discretion in terms of professional standing regarding for example, equality. Taking a
10
Juliette Wilson
Weberian explanation it may be that there is a tension between the integrity and
usefulness of professionalism which for Weber is stimulated by bureaucratisation,
and the ultimate depersonalisation which is also stimulated by bureaucratisation
taken to the nth degree. Thus, whilst the reorganisation of public service provision
may reduce the depersonalisation of street-level bureaucracies, the diminished
professional standards of street-level bureaucrats may also make discretion more of
an issue for example, in terms of how public funds are disbursed. Rice (2012) also
argues that the personal characteristics of street-level bureaucrats have a bearing on
their interaction with ‘clients’, which is especially pertinent in the era of activation
employment policies whereby ‘clients’ must prove their worth to the case-worker. In
terms of citizen socialisation and the role of time banks in reducing social exclusion
by aiming to increase employment, time banks act as a form of activation policy and
as such discretion of the time brokers may become an issue especially given the
disadvantage already heaped upon those who are the target members along gender,
class and ethnic lines. Eichhorst & Konle-Seidl (2008) suggest that the UK moved
towards activation policies as a way to reduce ‘benefit dependency’ however, they
also state that over a decade of activation policies have not actually reduced benefit
dependency. Further, if this is understood alongside unemployment statistics from
the last century (Denman & McDonald, 1996) which show a general steady rise in
unemployment (with a few dips) most likely caused by a reduction in manual jobs
and the rise in technology and outsourcing, it demands an assessment of the actual
causes of these social conditions. Without addressing the structural inequalities
which lead to such a situation the new street-level bureaucrats of the localised
decentralised third sector will experience ongoing conflict from trying to work with
diminished budgets, wider responsibility, widening social inequities, lack of
professional training and lack of professional representation i.e unions. Rice (2012)
also recognises the risks posed by the localisation of welfare and decentralisation
processes which make street-level bureaucracies more vulnerable to risk. The
argument herein is that discretion may not necessarily be a negative aspect of
street-level bureaucrats’ work, but that the reorganisation of public services through
third sector agencies such as time banks may lead to a reduction in professional
standards, a marginalisation of public services and an elevation of risk which may
have a knock-on effect on the equitable enactment of policy.
Conclusions
Time banks aim to address social exclusion by valuing people equally and providing
a mechanism to stimulate and reward the socially useful core economy work which is
not valued by the market economy. Devalued core economic ‘work’ by and large is
conducted disproportionately by women and those on a low income and as such the
core economy is on some level exploitative along gender and class lines something
which time banks purport to address. However, as recipients of government support
and funding time banks become street-level bureaucracies enacting Big Society
policy which calls for more core economic ‘work’ and less public funding in such
11
Juliette Wilson
previously centralised areas as responsibility for employment and social inclusion. In
fact, in a parallel to the devalued yet essential nature of core economic ‘work’ in
relation to the market economy, the franchising out of public sector work to social
enterprises such as time banks becomes a devalued economy of essential yet
undervalued activity which does not address the causal structural inequalities of
society. Time banks then, aim to address the devaluation of the core economy, but
through funding relationships with the government it would seem that they stimulate
this activity without revaluing and as such maintain exploitation along gender, class
and emerging ethnic lines. A tension is thus created between the aims of time banks,
and the aims of funding bodies which diminishes the stated goals of time banking.
Further, time brokers become contemporary street-level bureaucrats enacting social
control through funding which aims to fulfil employment activation policies, without
the professional standing of traditional street-level bureaucrats which may enable
them to have some control over the wider context. Whilst, it may be that reducing the
bureaucracy of street-level bureaucracies enables a personalisation of public
services that has been lost, it may also mean the loss of professional standards
which serve to maintain a level of equitable and informed services. In enacting
government policies with reduced funding and diminished professional status time
brokers embody the new street-level bureaucrats of the UK who take on the deprofessionalised role of coping with policies in a gender, class and ethnically
exploitative manner in order for governments to divulge responsibility and obfuscate
the structural inequities which are arguably the cause of the social problems time
banks seek to alleviate.
References
Amin, A., Cameron, A. & Hudson. R. (2003). The Alterity of the Social Economy. In: A. Leyshon, R.
Lee & C. Williams, eds. 2003. Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage, pp27-54
Barker, A. (2010). Co-Production: A Series of Commissioned Reports. Retrieved from:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/innovation/larci/LarciCoproductionSummary.pdf
Big Society Cooperative. (2013). Time Banking UK. Retrieved from:
http://www.bigsocietycooperative.com/timebanking-uk/
Big Society Capital. (u.d.) Big Society Capital; Transforming Social Investment. Retrieved from:
http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/
Cabinet Office. (2010) Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role of charities, social
enterprises, mutuals and cooperatives in public service delivery. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78924/commissioninggreen-paper.pdf
Cahn, E. (2000). No More Throw-Away People: The Co-Production Imperative. Washington: Essential
Books.
Coote, A. (2011). Ten big questions about the Big Society and ten ways to make it the best of it.
Retrieved from http://neweconomics.org/articles/ten-big-questions-about-the-big-society-html
12
Juliette Wilson
Denman, J. & McDonald, P. (1996). Unemployment statistics from 1881 to the present day. The
Government Statistical Service. Retrieved from: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour.../unemploymentsince-1881.pdf
Department for Work and Pensions. (u.d) What We Do. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about
Eichhorst, W. & Konle-Seidl, R. (2008) Contingent Convergence: A Comparative Analysis of
Activation Policies. Retrieved from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3905.pdf
ESRC. (U.d). Full Report of Activities and Research Results: Community Currencies From LETS To
Time Banks: Mobilising Voluntary Activities. Retrieved from: <www.esrc.ac.uk/.../f9649e00-1e33-4f1aa76f-45bca54a2fb2>
Evans, T. (2011) Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy, British
Journal of Social Work, 41, pp368-386, doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
Gregory, L. 2010. Working Paper 132: Time in Service Design: exploring the use of
time credits to deliver social policies. Online] Available at:<
http://www.labwales.org.uk/socsi/resources/wp132.pdf> [Accessed 2nd January 2013] Cardiff: Cardiff
University
Helliwell, J., Layard, R. & Sachs, J. (eds.). (2013) World Happiness Report 2013. New York:
Sustainable Developments Solutions Network.
HM Government. (u.d.) Building the Big Society. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78979/building-bigsociety_0.pdf
HM Government. (2012). Volunteering and Time Banking. Retrieved from:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/take-part/giving/volunteering-time-banking/
Islington Time Bank Network. (2012). Is Time. Retrieved from
http://blog.islingtontimebanks.org/?page_id=185
Kelly, A., (2007, 10 October). Core Values. Guardian online. Retrieved from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/10/guardiansocietysupplement.voluntarysector
Lasker, J., Collum, E., Bealer, T., Niclaus, E., Young Keefe, J., Kratzer, Z., Baldasari, L., Kramer, E.,
Mandeville, R., Schulman, J., Suchlow, D., Letcher, A., Rogers, A. & Perlow, K. (2011). Time Banking
and Health: The Role of a Community Currency Organization in Enhancing Well-Being, Health
Promotion Practice, 12, (1), pp102-115.
Legislation UK. (2012) The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/3/enacted
Leyshon, A. & Lee, R., (2003). Introduction: Alternative Economic Geographies. In: A. Leyshon, R.
Lee & C. Williams, eds. 2003. Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage, pp. 1-26.
Levitas, R. 2005, 2nd ed. The inclusive society? Social exclusion and new labour. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas Of The Individual In Public Services. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
13
Juliette Wilson
Lund, B. (2002). Understanding State Welfare. London: Sage Publications
New Economics Foundation, (2001). Time Banks: A radical manifesto for the UK. Retrieved from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Time_Banks_Manifesto.pdf
New Economics Foundation, (2008). The new wealth of time: How timebanking helps people build
better public services. Retrieved from:
http://neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/The_New_Wealth_Of_Time_1.pdf
North, P. (2006). Alternative Currency Movements as a Challenge to Globalization?: A Case Study of
Manchester's Local Currency Networks (Economic Geography) Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
NHS Lewisham. (2012). Lewisham Time Bank Development Strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.rgtb.org.uk/extras/strategy.pdf
Pressman, J.L & Wildavsky, A. (1984) Implementation (3rd Ed.). London: University of California
Press Ltd.
Reilly, C., Cassidy, T., (2008). The Impact of Time Banking in Scotland. Scotland: Volunteer
Development Scotland.
Rice, D. (2012). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State: Toward a Micro-Institutionalist
Theory of Policy Implementation, Administration & Society, doi: 10.1177/0095399712451895
Rushey Green Time Bank. (2013). “Welcome to Our Website”. Retrieved from: http://www.rgtb.org.uk/
Seyfang, G., and Smith, K. (2002). The Time of Our Lives: Using Time Banking for neighbourhood
renewal and community capacity building. Retrieved from:
http://www.timebanks.co.uk/downloads/the%20time%20of%20our%20lives_summary%20evaluation.
pdf
1Seyfang, G., (2003). Growing Cohesive Communities One Favour at a Time: Social Exclusion,
Active Citizenship and Time Banks, Journal of Urban and Regional research, 27(3).
2Seyfang, G. (2003). With a little help from my friends: evaluating time banks as a tool for community
self-help. Local Economy, 18 (3). pp. 257-264.
Seyfang G. (2006). Time Banks in the UK: Building Sustainable Communities Key Note Paper
‘Monetary Regionalisation’ conference, 28-29th September 2006, Weimar, Germany
Seyfang, G. (2009). The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Social Enterprise Network. (2010) Social Enterprise and its role in the ‘Big Society. Retrieved from:
http://www.sen.org.uk/social-enterprise-network/sites/sen/files/pagedocs/Big_Society_document.pdf.
Timebanking UK. (2012). About Timebanking. Retrieved from: http://www.timebanking.org/about/
TimeBank. (2013). English Language Learning in Birmingham and Leicester. Retrieved from:
http://timebank.org.uk/talking-together
14
Juliette Wilson
Warne, T. & Lawrence, K., (2009). The Salford Time Banking Evaluation: A report for Unlimited
Potential, formerly known as the Community Health Action Partnership (CHAP). Salford: The
University of Salford.
Wilkinson, R & Marmot, M (eds.). (2003). Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts.
Copenhagen: World Health Organisation.
Williams, C., & Windebank, J., 2003. Alternative Employment Spaces . In: A. Leyshon, R. Lee & C.
Williams, eds. 2003. Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage ,pp128-pp150.
Williams, C, Aldridge, T., Lee, R., Leyshon, A., Thrift, N., & Tooke, J. (2001). Bridges into Work? An
Evaluation of Local Exchange and Trading Schemes (LETS). [electronic version]. Policy Studies.
Retrieved from:
http://www.complementarycurrency.org/ccLibrary/aldridge_lee_et%20al_2001_Bridges%20into%20w
ork.pdf
Winlow, S. & Hall, S. (2013). Rethinking Social Exclusion: The End of the Social?. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
15