- 102 -
on conditions 1 and 2, and fails on conditions 5, 6 and 7". He then
develops his own idea "...the Cost System...based on the simple
criterion of how much it costs to run the parish parochially,
diocesanly and centrally" which "can boast strengths in all seven
areas". His system is built up by seeking data from parishes relative
to cost areas from which a financial profile can be prepared
(distinguishing supporting, self-supporting and supported parishes,
and endeavouring to link those in the first group with those in the
third) and allocating the diocesan share accordingly. From an
analytical accountant's point of view, it is encouraging to see anyone
within the Church evaluating such ideas, but it seems to be somewhat
advanced for present church thinking and has not, apparently, yet
been implemented.
Apropos of Laughlin's point four, Catton quotes Norwich diocese
as stating that:
"The major flaw in the present system is that the [share]
assessment depends entirely upon the money a parish has
raised in the past. This means that the parish which has
worked hard to teach committed giving pays a much larger
[share] than a similar parish which has done little over
the years to increase its income. Thus, as Diocesan
requirements increase so does the load falling on the backs
of the 'willing horses'. This knowledge can act as a
deterrent to any attempt to increase giving standards."
And we may reflect ourselves that this is a consideration of financial
incentives, which, among management students, would be better known as
motivation theory, and under which title it has been extensively, if
not conclusively, researched (by Lawler
(B19)
, among others). The
benefits that could be obtained from a familiarity with such research
when planning diocesan share systems seem obvious.
