New ‘big society’ providers could deliver better local services, but there are grave concerns surrounding funding, accountability and citizen redress

As reports emerge of a crisis meeting between big society architects Steve Hilton and Philip Blond, there is still notable uncertainty as to how their big idea may be operationalised at grass roots level. Paul Rainford and Jane Tinkler explore some of the available options and find that the creation of new ‘big society’ providers could offer definite benefits to local service provision in being more responsive to public needs and simplifying the institutional landscape for service users. However, big society providers cannot be seen as neat substitutes for the state and they will struggle to gain any sort of traction if funding and central support is absent or insufficient. There are also grave concerns surrounding commissioning, accountability and redress mechanisms for which the government seems to lack coherent solutions.