bQNs7mR

Who could support your assets?
This section looks at the four main resourcing models that I have discerned, which can be applied to existing
community and civic assets: privatism, residualism, partnerships, and municipalism. The main focus in the case
study cities has been how to make partnerships (between government, non-profits, the private sector, and the
public) work where the government does a lot but this still gets “topped-up” by others. In a few cases, there has
also been a need to make residualism work, whereby government’s role is minimized and often accompanied by
substantial cuts.
The models are particularly useful to:
• non-profits and asset support groups looking to get a picture of where their money is or might be coming from;
• local politicians looking to understand options open to them;
• foundations looking to gauge what role they should play in sustaining assets;
• corporate social responsibility managers looking to align their businesses to good local causes;
• social entrepreneurs that may wish to deliver assets on a non-profit basis; and
• the private sector, which may see a market opening for delivering some of the assets on a for-profit basis.
Privatism
The most radical of the four models, in the sense of being the greatest departure from the present situation
in most post-industrial countries, is the privatist model. In this model, government does nothing by way of
ownership or funding of services, and whatever provision there is comes from some combination of foundations,
philanthropists, social enterprise, volunteers, and for-profits.
Social enterprises and for-profits will be likely to require user payments in some form whether it be a charge for
entry or some subscription for use. 8 Equity/fairness considerations can still be retained with bursaries or feewaivers
for those able to demonstrate need. Providers might be licensed by a city council to ensure that equity
was taken into consideration.
Privatism often involves a desire to make extreme public spending cuts and/or an ideological belief that such
assets ought not to be funded from taxes. Certainly, there are and have been those who argue for a withdrawal of
government from some areas of provision — albeit not necessarily for a full-on market-based, for-profit version.
Box 2.1 outlines some examples of such thinking from Michigan.
8
See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscription_library.
Raising Awareness | 28