The City of God and the City

The Revd Canon Professor Nicholas Sagovsky

Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey and Visiting Professor in Theology and Public Life at Liverpool Hope University

Tuesday 26th January 2010

Brian Cuthbertson, Head of Environmental Challenge at the Diocese of London, welcomed an interested audience to All Hallows by the Tower Church for a lively debate on how we might slow down climate change. Both speakers agreed that whilst the Recession might reduce consumption, it was politically and socially unpalatable to welcome the Recession as ‘a good thing.’ Further, the Recession had already pushed many people in the developing world further into poverty. Mark Lynas noted that whilst excessive consumption and materialism might not bring more happiness to the Western world, clearly more economc growth was needed in many parts of the developing world. The conundrum, then, was how to reduce carbon emissions without limiting the economic growth of these countries. At the same time, temperature rises must be kept below 1.5degrees in order to prevent yet more devastation to poor countries - and the whole world needed to be carbon neutral by 2050 to achieve that. However, there was some hope; poorer countries had the opportunity to leap straight to cleaner technologies without passing through the higher-carbon alternatives. Mark Lynas had been working with the President of the Maldives who wished to make the Maldives a carbon neutral economy, and had commented that people do not want oil; they want transport; people do not want coal; they want energy. There were alternatives and there did not necessarily have to be a trade-off between poverty reduction and climate change.

Greg Barker MP agreed that fighting climate change and promoting economic growth were not mutually exclusive. He argued that not enough people had grasped the commitment needed to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; it would require a massive transformation in our economy, in our businesses, in the way we lead our lives. However, this was not something to fear; it was a moment of great opportunity as new business possibilities emerged. Climate change was a type of market failure, and it called for intervention in the form of more public-private partnerships - to de-carbonise the electricity supply, to improve the energy-efficiency of housing, to develop new forms of carbon capture and storage. The public sector, private sector and individuals all had a role to play in securing this cleaner future.

Questions from the audience included the possibilities of ‘green taxation’ and carbon-pricing mechanisms, the China-US stalemate over climate change, the ecological debt generated by de-forestation (as well as by Britain outsourcing much of its manufacturing to China), how private investment in sustainability might be incentivised and whether GDP ought to include a measure of environmental impact. Mark Lynas ended by challenging the UK Government to follow the example of the President of the Maldives by formally committing the UK to become a carbon-neutral country by 2020.

www.arcubus.org.uk

the University of Nottingham and Nick Wright, Head of Community Affairs at UBS

Chair: The Revd Paul Zaphiriou, Bishop’s Adviser on CSR.

The City of London has experienced a great deal of turmoil over the last 12 months and some of its practices - irresponsible lending, excessive bonuses - have come under fire. Will a new, more ethical way of doing business emerge from the green shoots? Will companies engage more with  corporate social responsibility - or will tighter belts in the Recession mean that investment in CSR is cut?

Professor Jeremy Moon began by noting that investment in CSR had increased both during the UK Recession of the 1980s and the Australian Recession of the 1990s. In the UK, this investment had translated into a wider concern with the ethics of supply chains, with the aid of pressure from NGOs, the media and consumers through, for example, the Fairtrade movement. There had been a shift from the philanthropic emphasis of: ‘What shall we do with our profits?’ to the corporate responsibility emphasis of ‘How do we make profits ethically?’ Professor Moon anticipated that other aspects of CSR would grow in importance during the Recession; energy-saving and waste-reducing measures, for example. The need to attract and retain strong employees was also relevant.

Nick Wright echoed this theme, noting that an internal survey at UBS had showed that employees engaged in volunteering and community work had outperformed their peers. CSR made business sense in other ways too; it took a longer-term perspective and the current volatility in the markets and likelihood of less benign regulation and less cheap money likewise called for longer-term planning. Business would be crucial in creating new jobs and opportunities to drive the economy out of the Recession, and there was scope there for CSR to be integrated into the business model rather than being a philanthropic add-on. He also felt that the banking sector, having received so much public money, was now much more reliant now on the goodwill of governments nad taxpayers. CSR would help business demonstrate their ethical credentials and give them a social licence to operate.

Questions from the audience included whether CSR was unashamedly about enhancing profits; whether the retreat and indebtedness of the public sphere might leave more space for the private sector to act, and if so, to whom it might be accountable; how far CSR really was integrated into strategies and business models rather than being an external communications issue; and whether there was any CSR collaboration across the financial sector? Conversations continued over refreshments afterwards.

PLEASE NOTE THAT EVENTS ON THIS PAGE ARE NOT JUSTSHARE EVENTS.

They are simply advertised here because JustShare supporters may be interested in them. Please contact event-organisers for further details.

The Revd Dr Ken Leech

Founder of Centrepoint and formerly Director of the Runnymede Trust

‘Is There an Anglican Tradition of Social Justice?’

We were delighted to welcome Fr Ken Leech to deliver the last in the 2009 JustShare lecture series on Christian Social and Political Thought on 11/11/2009.

Fr Leech began by noting that there were many traditions of social justice in Anglicanism, some more to be welcomed than others. He focused on 3 different types of social action; the status quo model, the top down model and the grassroots up model.

He emphasised that the status quo model, which meant reinforcing the established positions and taking no action whatsoever to challenge them, was often seen as apolitical but was in fact a deeply political act. Doing nothing, and by doing nothing, reinforcing the status quo, was a strong form of social and political action. Those who believed the Church should stay out of politics usually meant that it should stay out of the politics of dissent, not the politics of conformism.

The second model, ‘top down social action,’ was the kind which establshed working parties and wrote reports. These reports might be excellent, but often they came too late; by the time they had been considered, received and disseminated, the situation on the ground would have evolved anyway. The danger was that reports and working parties slowed down the potential for action.

The third model, grassroots social action, was epitomised by the founding of Centrepoint or The Simon Community. Fr Leech’s enjoyable history of the founding of Centrepoint emphasised its direct reponse to social needs and it small beginnings; ‘immediate action in your own backyard.’. Many of today’s most famous charities working for social justice began from very small roots and those involved did not necessarily see the wider implications or future of their endeavours. However, this third model of ‘grassroots up’ immediate social action was crucial.

Fr Alan thanked Ken Leech on behalf of the audience both for his lecture and for his inspirational personal tradition of Anglican social justice. Discussions continued over Fairtrade wine generously donated by La Riojana.

Chair: Mark Boleat CC

Tuesday 27th October 2009

What impact has the Recession had on nationalism and popular perceptions of immigration? Does the anti-immigration stance of the BNP gain ground when jobs are under threat and times are tight? What are the effects of this, economically and socially?

We welcomed two experts for this debate on 27th October 2009 at St Mary-le-Bow.

Philippe Legrain began by noting that ‘migration’ was a more accurate (and less negative) description than ‘immigration’ since movement was no longer in simply one direction. Moreover, migration today was rarely a permanent settlement but often more a temporary move. The notion of ‘immigration’ was outdated and should be replaced by the notion of a shifting kaleidoscope of mobility. If we supported free trade, the free movement of goods and services across borders, why were we opposed to the free movement of labour? There were substantial economic benefits to migration; it gave access to a wide and flexible pool of labout and talent, it enabled the creation and dissemination of ideas, it encouraged entrepreneurism and it gave the economy greater dynamism. Almost half of the Silicon Valley enterprises were co-founded by immigrants. There were also economic benefits for the home countries of migrants, many of whom came from developing countries; the amount of money sent overseas in remittances by migrants working in the UK was 3 times the amount given to developing countries in overseas aid. Seeking to close the borders to migrants was detrimental both to the UK economy and to the economies of developing countries. The increased xenophobia expressed during the Recession was both hypocritical and short-sighted.

Peter Lilley MP responded that concern about immigration was not caused by the Recession but by the levels of immigration. He agreed that there were economic benefits to some immigration, where gifted entrepreneurs and workers with the right talents and skills were involved, but, he argued, there was no compelling economic case for unlimited immigration. The benefits of immigration did not increase as the amount of immigration increased, but the costs of immigration did. Unlimited immigration had negative effects on local housing - particularly social housing - which could not keep up with demand. This in turn meant that more and more green spaces were turned into new housing developments, with knock-on negative effects on both the environment and people’s living conditions. It was wrong to welcome immigration without considering its impacts on housing and the environment. Moreover, Peter Lilley argued, the benefits of immigration fell more on the rich, who were able to employ cheaper nannies and pay lower bills at restaurants. If wages were at the right levels, there would be no need for immigrants to work in the UK; the local market would supply the demands if it were paid properly to do so. Encouraging migration from developing countries also denied those developing countries the skilled labour or key-workers that they themselves needed.

Philippe Legrain countered that suggesting the UK domestic labour market could and should supply UK labour needs was a contradiction of free market principles. He added that migrants had no access to social housing for the first 5 years of their stay in the UK and were net contributors to public finances.

Questions from the audience included the humanitarian aspects and morality of migration and the importance of taking into account its social and cultural implications. Mark Boleat concluded by thanking both speakers for such a high quality - and civilised - debate; rather a refershing change from some of the debates on this topic in other media!

Speakers: Gareth Thomas MP, Minister of State for International Development, and Daleep Mukarji, Director of Christian Aid.

Tuesday 20th October 2009 at All Hallows by the Tower, Byward Street.

Chairing the debate, the Revd Bertrand Olivier of JustShare and All Hallows by the Tower began by reading the bleak opening statement of the UN Millennium Development Goals Report 2009:

The Millennium Declaration set 2015 as the target date for achieving most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which established quantitative benchmarks to halve extreme poverty in all its forms.

As the date approaches, less than six years away, the world finds itself mired in an economic crisis that is  unprecedented in its severity and global dimensions. Progress towards the goals is now threatened by sluggish — or even negative — economic growth, diminished resources, fewer trade opportunities for the developing countries, and possible reductions in aid flows from donor nations.

JustShare was delighted to welcome two excellent speakers to discuss this important issue. Daleep Mukarji began by suggesting that we cannot blame the Recession for our failure to meet the Millennium Development Goals to date.  Although the UK government had shown as strong lead, the world remained $35bn short of its 2005 pledge on aid whilst the Doha trade talks had not delivered a fair deal for developing countries either and debt, TB and malaria remained severe burdens. The Goal of greater international partnership in fighting poverty had not been realised, the opportunity to reform international financial institutions which the financial crisis seemed to present had not been seized, and tax injustice remained far too prevalent too. Christian Aid research indivated that developing countries lost $160bn p.a. through tax avoidance - far more than they received in aid or remittances. There was a grave danger that the Copenhagen climate change summit would not result in a fair, effective and binding set of commitments. If it did not, we would make poverty permanent rather than making poverty history and the victims would be not just the MDGs but the millions of poor people suffering shortages, deprivation and disease.

Gareth Thomas MP agreed that we must re-double our efforts to meet the MDGs especially in the wake of the financial crisis; he noted that the UN estimated 100mn more people had fallen into poverty than would have been the case had the Recession not occurred. He set out 5 points of focus: 1) stronger economic growth with open and fair trade, job creation and consequent tax revenue increases; 2) making sure aid pledges were met (and although the UK government planned to legislate to that end, civil society had an important role in putting pressure on governments to keep their aid commitments); 3) reforming international financial institutions; 4) working with developing countries to address climate change (which could cost an additional $300bn) and taking our fair share of responsibility for it; 5) encouraging other countries to play their part in meeting the MDGs too.

Both speakers agreed on the need to celebrate progress towards the MDGs whilst re-doubling efforts to ensuring that further progress was made.  Questions included whether aid, as opposed to systemic change, was sufficient; the role of (in)equality; social protection schemes; the channels of campaigning for fairer trade deals in Europe and the paradox of encouraging more development in the global south and yet simpler living in the global north. The latter meant committing to more equitable use of the world’s resources; for years, the global north had far exceeded its share. Perhaps one role for faith groups was to keep the critique of greed and emphasis on justice and sustainability on the agenda.

Discussions continued over Fairtrade refreshments.

Professor Tina Beattie

(Professor of Catholic Studies, Roehampton University)

‘Catholic Social Teaching: A Vision for our Times?’

We were delighted to welcome Professor Beattie on Wednesday 23rd September 2009. She gave a fascinating lecture, the 5th in our series on Social and Political Thought; the full text is available here:

tina-beattie-23909-lecture-text

Brother Timothy Radcliffe OP

Formerly Master of the Dominican Order worldwide

‘Our Father: A Prayer for Justice’

We were delighted to welcome Brother Timothy Radcliffe OP to give the fourth in our series of lectures on Christian Social and Political Thought on Wednesday 22nd July at St Mary-le-Bow. Brother Timothy explored the Lord’s Prayer in terms of its emphasis on justice in our relationship to God and one another. ‘Our Father’ itself, for example, affirmed our mutal brother- and sister-hood as children of God, whilst ‘hallowed be thy name’ simply meant giving God his due. The first half of the Lord’s Prayer, he suggested, referred to justice in our relationship with God and the second half (’As we forgive those…’) to justice in our relationship with others. ‘Our’ daily bread (not ‘my’ daily bread’) signified the rights of all to daily bread, and the injustice that is perpetuated when we and our unequal society deny it to others. The challenge for our times, Br. Timothy concluded, was to ensure that the common good took priority over the private good.

The full text of the lecture is available here: br-timothy-radcliffe-op-lecture-text

Questions from the audience included how we might help to make people more just, what role politics might play in achieving greater justice and how to hold politicians to the reality (rather than the rhetoric) of their promises. Informal discussions continued over Fairtrade wine kindly donated by La Riojana.