Analysis
Article 5
Inclusive and resilient communities: Co-creating our human and social capital
Article 5 of our State of the State 2018 series examines human and social capital – what they are and why they are so integral to New Zealand’s wellbeing future. We give recommendations and examples on how to grow them for the benefit of all Kiwis.
Explore Content
- How communities can contribute and benefit
- How do we define community?
- What needs to be changed?
- What is the way forward?
Expanding from a GDP economy to a wellbeing economy will require a fundamental re-think of how we define success as a nation and the transformation of the public, private and community sectors.
Despite this potentially daunting shift, the time for such change is now. Influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman describes the current era as an “Age of Accelerations”, specifically of technology, globalisation and climate change.1 Achieving societal wellbeing in today’s world, where disruption has become normal, requires a collaborative and systemic response to the issues of our time.
To strengthen the stocks of social, human, natural and financial/physical capital upon which wellbeing and resilience depend, our models of democracy, governance and power need to evolve and embrace complexity.
As we continue our State of the State series exploring wellbeing, we examine what needs to be different in order to strengthen our social and human capital in the pursuit of wellbeing, and the role of communities and policy-makers in this endeavour.
What is meant by social and human capital?
Treasury’s ambition with the Living Standards Framework is to help us integrate a broader understanding of economics and value into the everyday work of public policy.2 The four capitals at the heart of the framework generate tangible and intangible benefits to enhance wellbeing now and in the future.
There are many definitions of the four capitals but for our purposes, we will use those outlined by Treasury.3 Along with financial/physical and natural capital, the two we are concerned with in this article are:
- Human capital - an individual’s skills, knowledge, mental and physical health. It enables people to participate fully in work, study, recreation and in society more broadly.
- Social capital - the networks, attitudes and norms promoting coordination and collaboration between people; and the social connections that provide people with emotional, instrumental and informational support.
The Māori concept of social capital emphasises the primary importance of extended whānau relationships, knowledge of a specific "place" in society, informal associations, the holistic nature of relationships and networks, and the defence, preservation and expansion of existing hapū & iwi communities.4 We will be exploring the wellbeing economy from a Māori perspective in a future article in the State of the State series.
Put simply, social capital is an important basis for, and product of, cooperation. This cooperation starts at the family and neighbourhood level, and then within the wider community.5 Trust, optimism, satisfaction with life, perceptions of government institutions and political involvement all stem from the fundamental dimensions of social capital. The desired end point of building social capital is improved wellbeing of community members.
Social capital can have drawbacks as well. Bonds between members of a community can become so entrenched that bridges cannot be built between different communities. Social capital can divide as well as unite and can increase social isolation while inhibiting social mobility. The kinds of groupings and associations that generate social capital also carry the potential to exclude others.6
Inclusive and resilient communities: Co-creating our human and social capital
How communities can contribute to and benefit from social and human capital
Communities with strong social capital have resources for new ways of thinking and working to address complex problems.7 We may default to thinking that only money is needed in communities; however grassroots community-based action is very effective at solving issues. According to David Hanna, a specialist with Inspiring Communities (see Good Cents) and the Director of Wesley Community Action, a stable community with strong social capital can handle significant disruption: the definition of a resilient community.8
When it comes to human capital, many studies have shown the direct benefits of lifting educational attainment to the economic health of communities. Investing in human capital is the single most effective way of not just promoting growth but also of distributing its benefits more fairly.10
Leading American social scientist, Michael Woolcock, has explored urban studies showing that rates of crime and suicide are less and health outcomes and employment prospects are better in deprived areas where measures of social and human density are greater, even after allowing for other factors.11
How communities can contribute to and benefit from social and human capital
Communities with strong social capital have resources for new ways of thinking and working to address complex problems.7 We may default to thinking that only money is needed in communities; however grassroots community-based action is very effective at solving issues. According to David Hanna, a specialist with Inspiring Communities (see Good Cents sidebar) and the Director of Wesley Community Action, a stable community with strong social capital can handle significant disruption: the definition of a resilient community.8
When it comes to human capital, many studies have shown the direct benefits of lifting educational attainment to the economic health of communities. Investing in human capital is the single most effective way of not just promoting growth but also of distributing its benefits more fairly.10
Leading American social scientist, Michael Woolcock, has explored urban studies showing that rates of crime and suicide are less and health outcomes and employment prospects are better in deprived areas where measures of social and human density are greater, even after allowing for other factors.11
How do we define community in the context of the four capitals?
We have a good understanding of the different types of families in New Zealand (see Article 4 in our State of the State series) but when we use the term community things get more complicated. Everyone has an idea of what it is, but community can mean different things to different people.
Globally, we spend 51 percent of our time in a realm where we are all connected, yet no one is in charge.12 Cyberspace is largely ungoverned by traditional institutions like nation states or religious groups. Our idea of community, and how we organise ourselves to challenge power, has changed.
The Department of Internal Affairs provides one definition of different types of communities, which are not mutually exclusive:13
- Communities of place: these are people who share a common location where they live, work or spend time. This may be all of the people in a neighbourhood or small town.
- Communities of interest: these are people in a defined location who share a common passion. An example may be people in South Dunedin interested in including older people in their community.
- Communities of attribute: these are people within a place who share a common personal feature or identity. An example may be the deaf community of a city such as Hamilton.
In the Māori concept of community, whānau moves seamlessly from the immediate family to hāpu and iwi, so the whānau becomes the community and the community is made up of whānau. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of whānau (or community).14
How communities can contribute to and benefit from social and human capital
Communities with strong social capital have resources for new ways of thinking and working to address complex problems.7 We may default to thinking that only money is needed in communities; however grassroots community-based action is very effective at solving issues. According to David Hanna, a specialist with Inspiring Communities (see Good Cents sidebar) and the Director of Wesley Community Action, a stable community with strong social capital can handle significant disruption: the definition of a resilient community.8
When it comes to human capital, many studies have shown the direct benefits of lifting educational attainment to the economic health of communities. Investing in human capital is the single most effective way of not just promoting growth but also of distributing its benefits more fairly.10
Leading American social scientist, Michael Woolcock, has explored urban studies showing that rates of crime and suicide are less and health outcomes and employment prospects are better in deprived areas where measures of social and human density are greater, even after allowing for other factors.11
How do we define community in the context of the four capitals?
We have a good understanding of the different types of families in New Zealand (see Article 4 in our State of the State series) but when we use the term community things get more complicated. Everyone has an idea of what it is, but community can mean different things to different people.
Globally, we spend 51 percent of our time in a realm where we are all connected, yet no one is in charge.12 Cyberspace is largely ungoverned by traditional institutions like nation states or religious groups. Our idea of community, and how we organise ourselves to challenge power, has changed.
The Department of Internal Affairs provides one definition of different types of communities, which are not mutually exclusive:13
- Communities of place: these are people who share a common location where they live, work or spend time. This may be all of the people in a neighbourhood or small town.
- Communities of interest: these are people in a defined location who share a common passion. An example may be people in South Dunedin interested in including older people in their community.
- Communities of attribute: these are people within a place who share a common personal feature or identity. An example may be the deaf community of a city such as Hamilton.
In the Māori concept of community, whānau moves seamlessly from the immediate family to hāpu and iwi, so the whānau becomes the community and the community is made up of whānau. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of whānau (or community).14
How do we define community in the context of the four capitals?
We have a good understanding of the different types of families in New Zealand (see Article 4 in our State of the State series) but when we use the term community things get more complicated. Everyone has an idea of what it is, but community can mean different things to different people.
Globally, we spend 51 percent of our time in a realm where we are all connected, yet no one is in charge.12 Cyberspace is largely ungoverned by traditional institutions like nation states or religious groups. Our idea of community, and how we organise ourselves to challenge power, has changed.
The Department of Internal Affairs provides one definition of different types of communities, which are not mutually exclusive:13
- Communities of place: these are people who share a common location where they live, work or spend time. This may be all of the people in a neighbourhood or small town.
- Communities of interest: these are people in a defined location who share a common passion. An example may be people in South Dunedin interested in including older people in their community.
- Communities of attribute: these are people within a place who share a common personal feature or identity. An example may be the deaf community of a city such as Hamilton.
In the Māori concept of community, whānau moves seamlessly from the immediate family to hapū and iwi, so the whānau becomes the community and the community is made up of whānau. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of whānau (or community).14
How communities can contribute to and benefit from social and human capital
Communities with strong social capital have resources for new ways of thinking and working to address complex problems.7 We may default to thinking that only money is needed in communities; however grassroots community-based action is very effective at solving issues. According to David Hanna, a specialist with Inspiring Communities (see Good Cents sidebar) and the Director of Wesley Community Action, a stable community with strong social capital can handle significant disruption: the definition of a resilient community.8
When it comes to human capital, many studies have shown the direct benefits of lifting educational attainment to the economic health of communities. Investing in human capital is the single most effective way of not just promoting growth but also of distributing its benefits more fairly.10
Leading American social scientist, Michael Woolcock, has explored urban studies showing that rates of crime and suicide are less and health outcomes and employment prospects are better in deprived areas where measures of social and human density are greater, even after allowing for other factors.11
How do we define community in the context of the four capitals?
We have a good understanding of the different types of families in New Zealand (see Article 4 in our State of the State series) but when we use the term community things get more complicated. Everyone has an idea of what it is, but community can mean different things to different people.
Globally, we spend 51 percent of our time in a realm where we are all connected, yet no one is in charge.12 Cyberspace is largely ungoverned by traditional institutions like nation states or religious groups. Our idea of community, and how we organise ourselves to challenge power, has changed.
The Department of Internal Affairs provides one definition of different types of communities, which are not mutually exclusive:13
- Communities of place: these are people who share a common location where they live, work or spend time. This may be all of the people in a neighbourhood or small town.
- Communities of interest: these are people in a defined location who share a common passion. An example may be people in South Dunedin interested in including older people in their community.
- Communities of attribute: these are people within a place who share a common personal feature or identity. An example may be the deaf community of a city such as Hamilton.
In the Māori concept of community, whānau moves seamlessly from the immediate family to hāpu and iwi, so the whānau becomes the community and the community is made up of whānau. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of whānau (or community).14
How communities can contribute to and benefit from social and human capital
Communities with strong social capital have resources for new ways of thinking and working to address complex problems.7 We may default to thinking that only money is needed in communities; however grassroots community-based action is very effective at solving issues. According to David Hanna, a specialist with Inspiring Communities (see Good Cents sidebar) and the Director of Wesley Community Action, a stable community with strong social capital can handle significant disruption: the definition of a resilient community.8
When it comes to human capital, many studies have shown the direct benefits of lifting educational attainment to the economic health of communities. Investing in human capital is the single most effective way of not just promoting growth but also of distributing its benefits more fairly.10
Leading American social scientist, Michael Woolcock, has explored urban studies showing that rates of crime and suicide are less and health outcomes and employment prospects are better in deprived areas where measures of social and human density are greater, even after allowing for other factors.11
How do we define community in the context of the four capitals?
We have a good understanding of the different types of families in New Zealand (see Article 4 in our State of the State series) but when we use the term community things get more complicated. Everyone has an idea of what it is, but community can mean different things to different people.
Globally, we spend 51 percent of our time in a realm where we are all connected, yet no one is in charge.12 Cyberspace is largely ungoverned by traditional institutions like nation states or religious groups. Our idea of community, and how we organise ourselves to challenge power, has changed.
The Department of Internal Affairs provides one definition of different types of communities, which are not mutually exclusive:13
- Communities of place: these are people who share a common location where they live, work or spend time. This may be all of the people in a neighbourhood or small town.
- Communities of interest: these are people in a defined location who share a common passion. An example may be people in South Dunedin interested in including older people in their community.
- Communities of attribute: these are people within a place who share a common personal feature or identity. An example may be the deaf community of a city such as Hamilton.
In the Māori concept of community, whānau moves seamlessly from the immediate family to hāpu and iwi, so the whānau becomes the community and the community is made up of whānau. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of whānau (or community).14
What needs to be different to achieve wellbeing through a four capitals approach?
1. Working back from a vision of the future
New Zealand is a signatory to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Global Goals),15 and has recently launched consultation for a Zero Carbon Act16 and a Climate Commission, and has publically declared a commitment to a Wellbeing Budget17 based on Treasury’s Living Standards Framework.18 However, without an ambitious, encompassing vision connecting them the wellbeing framework feels incremental and like a 'bolt on' to existing social services.
For example, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require a cross-Government effort and input from the private sector and civil society. New Zealand government agencies are currently reviewing the goals and their alignment with government priorities. This analysis will inform a discussion on how New Zealand focuses its efforts.19 However, there needs to be an overarching vision to guide all parties through this process.
In addition, the Community Wellbeing Amendment Bill (currently in select committee) is based on the notion that councils and communities are best placed to determine and prioritise which services they need.20 But it’s not a given that local government with more power and more mandate is more likely to collaborate, co-design with or empower communities.
We can’t avoid the question of whether decisions and ideas are flowing down from central government or up from the people, and whether those with the most expertise and experience are being empowered to make the changes we need.
Some level of policy and funding certainty is required to enable civil society, community organisations and business to collaborate and innovate in a way that transcends the current planning cycles and partisan politics. This will require a step change in how most of our institutions operate. We need to build governance structures that act independently and support a long-term transition – in a similar vein to the intended Climate Commission – and we need a long-term bipartisan vision to support these new structures.21
Most importantly, we must enable solutions to emerge from our shared effort toward the future we want, not the history we have.
2. Comfort with complexity and trust in the ecosystem
As we explored in Article 3 in this series, The evolution of social investment, the overall public sector incentive structure in New Zealand remains risk averse and not supportive of greater knowledge through trial and error.
To achieve strength within each of the four capitals, we need structures that embrace a complexity mind-set and recognise that innovation - with its inherent risk of failure - is required to achieve new solutions. Social problems are complex and multi-layered and there will be no single, clear solution. There are many committed organisations, such as Wesley Community Action, with strong records of delivery in a community setting. They are building precious social capital across one or many communities in innovative ways that address complex issues.
3. Build the conditions to allow co-created, adaptive policy
The developing adaptive policy work developing related to climate change and natural disaster resilience is grounded in the understanding that we can’t predict the future. Maintaining strong social capital will be critical to ensuring policy remains relevant to impacted communities and the transition to a low emissions economy is equitable and inclusive. Similarly in a wellbeing frame, co-creating policy facilitates trust, ownership, shared risk and pathways to innovation that are relevant for those facing the most difficult challenges.
A good example of this in the social sphere is the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) initiative, which is a partnership between the disability sector and government agencies to give disabled people greater control over their lives.22 Central to EGL is the shifting of authority so disabled people and their families have the 'say so' in their care and support.
Another example is the Community-led Development (CLD) Programme. This uses a community-led approach to support communities and hapū to achieve their goals by working together, building on strengths, encouraging wide participation and developing local leaders. Inspiring Communities is a CLD and its specialists, such as David Hanna, mentor, broker, train and connect communities to become even better places to live, work and invest in.23
We expect public policy-makers in New Zealand will be exploring various mechanisms to better enable co-created, adaptive policy. In 2014, when the UK Government was grappling with this issue, it established the Policy Lab to bring people-centred, transparent design approaches to policy-making.24 The Lab provides policy teams with practical support to better understand the people they are trying to reach, and work with them to co-design new solutions.
As our Treasury Secretary, Gabriel Makhlouf, said in his speech on the the Living Standards Framework back in March: “all public policy asks the same fundamental question: whatever mechanisms we choose to use to solve the 'economic problem', what can the state do to make the mechanism work better towards improving collective wellbeing?”25
4. Measuring what matters
As David Hanna points out, while we may struggle to measure a community, we can measure the unease that occurs when we don’t have community.26
Whether social capital can (or can’t) be measured at an individual or community level, there is a lot to be gained from harmonising approaches to measuring, understanding and valuing all the capitals, not least in terms of directing finite resources to the most effective outcomes.27
This is challenging work, already started by Treasury with Conal Smith’s “Treasury Living Standards Dashboard: Monitoring Intergenerational Wellbeing”, which is expected to be developed by the end of the year.28 The dashboard of indicators will need to be robust to provide short-term and long-term advice. Further cross-sector collaboration to advance this work and scale best practice philosophies, practices and tools will help drive shared understanding across the “unusual partners” needed to actually achieve systemic shifts.
The Deloitte US Reimagining Measurement initiative has explored the future of monitoring, evaluation, and learning in the social sphere and may be a useful resource.29 It has looked at how the social sector can better use data and information to measure goals, achievements and impacts. The initiative has explored the differences between the expected future - the default view of what most people anticipate if they simply project forward current trends and behaviours, without any specific interventions - and the better future they hope the field can realise. In addition, the UK’s Happy City offers tools and guidance to promote measurement of the wellbeing of people and the planet as an alternative to GDP growth.
Policy-makers here in New Zealand need to think carefully about how to measure what matters, both now and in the future. Measurement is only useful if it helps influence actions to achieve better outcomes.
What is the way forward?
What could developing and strengthening social and human capital look like for New Zealand’s wellbeing economy?
The OECD has been researching social and human capital measures and policies for some years now. It recommends various policies for strengthening such capital, some of which we already have in New Zealand, such as paid parental leave.30 Central to the OECD policy recommendations is a people-centred government decision-making process and this is where New Zealand can make real progress.
We need to listen. Government will have to move beyond public consultation and connect deeply with communities on issues they are struggling with – a wide range of different types of community – to put people at the heart of the approach to improve wellbeing.
In many of our communities there is, of course, very strong social and human capital, but often this is linked to the respective community’s financial capital. We need policies and structures that support social and human capital across low socio-economic areas. The current Government has embarked on an ambitious range of reviews of the education, welfare and criminal justice systems. This is commendable but not sufficient to really embed community input into decision-making around new policy.
We are talking about a fundamental shift in policy-making. Policy-makers will need to become custodians of the process that ensures co-creation of policy rather than remaining custodians of the knowledge.
In this Age of Acceleration, change is exponential, and no single group has all the solutions.31 Agencies need to start feeling comfortable with not having all the answers, and be flexible about changing course when their efforts are not succeeding.
Our governments, institutions, academics, businesses and innovators will need to be organised in such a way as to embrace complexity and to foster and facilitate collaboration and creativity between unusual partners.
We will need all our collective wisdom, experience and skills to find solutions to address future problems that do not even exist yet. The Māori proverb ‘Ka mua, Ka muri’ (looking back in order to move forward) describes how we walk backwards into the future. Our thoughts are directed toward the coming generations but our eyes are on the past. We need novel and long-term solutions to ensure a sustainable future in order to, as Māori also say, protect the Earth that we are borrowing from our children.32 
It makes good cents Wesley Community Action is a Wellington-based social services organisation. In 2007, the Board noticed that despite economic growth, demand for the local foodbank remained high. Discussions with foodbank users revealed many of them were trapped in a cycle of debt. Good Cents emerged in 2011 as a locally developed response to the issue of debt and has grown into a community-owned initiative focused on transforming the systems and structures that create unsustainable debt. Wesley House in Cannons Creek has acted as an “innovation hub”; not only delivering Good Cents to about 200 members of the community; but also offering additional initiatives such as a fruit and vegetable co-operative, cooking classes and school visits. These initiatives are unashamedly community-led, with an overarching belief that those who work, play and live in the community are best placed to create change and lead transformation. Individuals are moving away from feeling helpless to building confidence and feeling more in control of their situation. Wesley Community Action director David Hanna said we default to thinking that money is needed in communities, but community-based action has been the most effective. http://inspiringcommunities.org.nz/ Grow happiness, one city at a time Founded in Bristol in 2010, Happy City is a charity and community interest company with the overall mission is to ‘make what matters count’. It started off as a bold experiment to put the wellbeing of current and future generations of Bristol citizens at centre stage. Its aim now is to ‘grow happiness, one city at a time’. Happy City works with organisations to help them develop and embed the new progress measures and assists with training, projects and campaigns. All of Happy City’s work is based on founding beliefs that:
http://www.happycity.org.uk |
End Notes
2. Speech by Gabriel Makhlouf, (December 2017). Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/speech/intergenerational-wellbeing-weaving-living-standards-framework-public-policy
3. NZ Treasury. Living Standards Framework. December 2017. Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-12/lsf-pres-13dec17.pdf
4. Williams, T; Robinson, D. (2001). “Social Capital Based Partnerships, a Maori Perspective from a Comparative Approach in Building Social Capital”, Institute of Policy Studies.
5. Bullen, P; Onyx, J. (1998). “Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in NSW: A Practitioner's Guide.”
6. Claridge, T. (2004). “Social Capital and Natural Resource Management: An important role for social capital?” Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/literature/theory/benefits/
7. ibid.
8 Pandit. A. To Embrace Community We Must Embrace Complexity. www2.deloitte.com/nz/en/pages/social-impact/articles/social-impact-embrace-community.html
9. Woolcock, M; Narayan, D. (2000). "Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy (English)". The World Bank Research Observer. -- Vol. 15, no. 2 (August 2000), pp. 25-249.
10. OECD (2012). Retrieved from https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-41754
11. Helliwell, J.F. The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being Symposium Report, Department of Economics, University of British Columbia.
12. Friedman, Thomas L. (2016). Thank you for being Late: Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Acceleration.
13. Community Matters. Community-led Development Programme. Retrieved from https://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/community-led-development-programme/
14. Williams, T; Robinson, D. (2001). “Social Capital Based Partnerships, a Maori Perspective from a Comparative Approach in Building Social Capital”, Institute of Policy Studies..
15. Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rights-and-security/work-with-the-un-and-other-partners/new-zealand-and-the-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/
16. The Climate Commission. Retrieved from https://zerocarbonact.nz/getting-us-to-zero-carbon/the-climate-commission
17. Budget 2019: Focus on wellbeing. Retrieved from https://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/2018/economic-fiscal-outlook/budget-2019-focus-on-wellbeing.htm
18. NZ Treasury. Our living standards framework. Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/living-standards/our-living-standards-framework
19. NZ Foreign Affairs & Trade. Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rights-and-security/work-with-the-un-and-other-partners/new-zealand-and-the-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/
20. Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2018/0048/latest/LMS30972.html.
21. The Climate Commission. Retrieved from https://zerocarbonact.nz/getting-us-to-zero-carbon/the-climate-commission
22. Enabling Good Lives. Enabling Good Lives Toolbox. Retrieved from http://www.enablinggoodlives.co.nz/about-egl/resources/provider-resources/enabling-good-lives-toolbox/
23. Inspiring Communities. http://inspiringcommunities.org.nz/
24. UK Cabinet Office. Policy Lab. Retrieved from https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/about/
25. Speech by Gabriel Makhlouf (March 2018). Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/speech/natural-capital-and-living-standards-framework
26. Pandit. A. To Embrace Community We Must Embrace Complexity. www2.deloitte.com/nz/en/pages/social-impact/articles/social-impact-embrace-community.html
27. Claridge, T., (2004). Social Capital and Natural Resource Management: An important role for social capital? Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
28. Speech by Gabriel Makhlouf (March 2018). Retrieved from https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/speech/natural-capital-and-living-standards-framework
29.Deloitte. Deloitte Reimagining Measurement Toolkit; Report and Podcast. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/monitor-institute/us-monitor-institute-reimagining-measurement-toolkit.pdf and https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/multimedia/podcasts/monitoring-evaluation-learning-social-impact-measurement.html
30. OECD (2001). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforum/33703702.pdf
31. Friedman, Thomas L. (2016). Thank you for being Late: Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Acceleration.
32. Price, C. (2014). Māori Matters. Retrieved from http://salient.org.nz/2014/03/maori-matters-2/ent.org.nz/2014/03/maori-matters-2/
Get in touch
