The launch in Liverpool of plans to build the â??Big Societyâ?? provided further details of David Cameronâ??s vision to end the period of â??big governmentâ??. The author explores the prevalent scepticism among many stakeholders.

It has been widely reported that the ideas so far outlined by the Conservatives (and influenced by think tanks including Respublica and the Centre for Social Justice) have failed to gain traction amongst a confused and sometimes sceptical public. This scepticism extends to some of the voluntary and community organisations that are likely to be at the frontline of the Big Society. Given the opportunity – and not to mention the limelight – that the Big Society presents, why so?

From the various announcements, it is clear that the key principle behind the Big Society agenda is the need to transform the relationship between the state and citizens. The Big Society is about people doing more for their communities and taking more responsibility. Rather confusingly it appears to be both an outcome – a vision of what society might look like – and a means – how this vision might be achieved. At the individual level, the emphasis is on community involvement and volunteering. But it’s not all about individuals: it’s also about government and more specifically a ‘small state’, which will be achieved through localism and decentralisation. The underlying assumption is that a ‘small state’ will lead to mass engagement, as opposed to a ‘big government’ that is seen to restrict people’s ability to get involved. A further assumption is that voluntary and community organisations will be a catalyst for this engagement.

The very notion of a ‘small state’ has led to much critique and a good dose of cynicism. Numerous reactions to the Big Society agenda show that it is often perceived as a way for government to justify and implement public spending cuts. This is something that the government itself is acutely aware of: in his speech David Cameron addressed head-on this perception and denies vehemently that the idea of the Big Society has been developed with this in mind.

At NCVO, we recognise that many of the principles underpinning the Big Society are positive and provide real opportunities for voluntary and community organisations and the communities they work with. However, we strongly believe that it is impossible to separate out the Big Society agenda from the challenging economic environment in which we are all currently operating. Although initiatives like the Big Society Bank are to be welcomed, the cuts from the public purse are already having an impact on voluntary and community organisations. NCVO's 'crowdsourcing the cuts' exercise shows that many organisations are now experiencing cuts by their local authority. These cuts are already hitting services provided to people and communities that government finds it most difficult to reach.

While we recognise that having no cuts is not an option, we urge the government and local authorities to think carefully about where and how they are making cuts. If engagement is to be the key priority of the Big Society then we need to work with those groups and organisations that are already supporting people, doing the kind of things that David Cameron wants to see more of. We need to learn from their experience and find ways of helping them continue the valuable work they’re doing. Much of the success in reshaping services over the last decade has been based upon genuine partnership between the voluntary sector and local government.

The Big Society is an evolution of policy, not a revolution. Community involvement, voluntarism and social action are not new ideas. These have a long history in British society, and a considerable number of people already volunteer, give money to charitable causes or both. This represents a good base on which to build. However, one thing we do know from existing community initiatives is that engagement has a cost. This is particularly true of initiatives that have engaged with those less likely to be involved in the first place – those from the most vulnerable communities. We also know that engagement in local decision-making processes takes time and that participation is often messy. Shaping and running local services is not a simple process – this type of involvement requires time, skills, and a level of commitment that not everybody will have. It’s highly likely that these requirements that are so key to making initiatives a success will put some communities at an advantage and others at a disadvantage. The latter are likely to be the more deprived communities where needs are more pressing. So a key challenge is building the Big Society where it is the most needed.

Can voluntary and community organisations help? Making participation more inclusive and more widespread is far from easy. While removing barriers to participation is essential to increasing opportunities, it is unlikely to be sufficient. People’s involvement is complex – they are motivated by a range of factors, some of them very personal. These have been difficult to unpick, so NCVO’s Pathways through Participation project is looking at individuals’ stories of participation to better understand what makes people tick and what involvement means to them. People are telling us that their engagement is linked to their values and beliefs, their identity and sense of self, and their relationships. These have rarely been mentioned in relation to the Big Society debate, yet they are likely to be fundamental to any form of engagement. These emerging stories highlight the many ways people engage and the importance of civil society in providing a ‘space’ for that engagement. The Big Society will need to embrace – and support – civil society in its broadest sense and not just voluntary organisations that deliver services.