The challenge of population balance: mapping Scotland's institutional and intervention landscape

Executive Summary

The subject of this report is the complex policy system which characterises

Scotland’s attempt to foster the geographical balance of population, as set out in the Scottish Government’s Population Strategy. In essence, this means mitigating, or adapting to, the negative social and economic effects of either extreme depopulation (“shrinking”) or rapid population growth (“overheating”). The range of available policy “levers” is as broad as the variety of processes driving population change across the patchwork of local contexts which constitute twenty-first century Scotland. Both in recognition of the geographic diversity of the process of population change, and as a legacy of a long evolutionary process, the policy response to the challenge of population balance is multi-faceted, involves a wide range of governance actors, and is guided by a number of distinct intervention logics. The objectives of this report are to sketch out the extent and main components of the policy system, to identify the key actors, and to classify their approaches, with a view to providing some reflections on how this complex policy machine might be fine-tuned to become more effective.

A desk-based review of policy documents shows that population balance is included in the objectives of three broad groups of Scottish Government policy:

I. Those which address built infrastructure needs: including the National Infrastructure Plan, the National Transport Strategy, the Housing to 2040 Strategy, and the National Planning Framework.

II. Those which focus mainly upon the economy: including the National Islands Plan, the work of the Regional Development Agencies, and Regional Economic Partnerships. Community land ownership and local community development initiatives are also important.

III. Those which are concerned with basic services: including Community Planning, Health and Social Care, Education (especially school estate), and Digital Infrastructure.

Pilot actions funded by the Addressing Depopulation Action Plan (ADAP) are a very important recent addition whose interventions fall mostly into the third group, but contribute to all three.

In terms of the two extremes of “unbalance” – shrinking and overheating - clearly the former receives much more attention in terms of policy than the latter. There are probably historical/cultural reasons for this. In addition, growth remains the unquestioned underpinning political motivation at all levels of governance. Drawing attention to the downsides of growth is not usually a vote-winner.

In terms of governance, whilst the first of the three groups of policies is mostly delivered through a partnership between the Scottish Government and the 32 councils, the second and third involve a complex network of public sector (government, councils, agencies) and the third sector.

The current governance landscape is a snapshot of a system in flux, with legacies from past events (devolution), periods of centralisation, and more recently partial delocalisation. In this, Scotland is similar to other countries of Northern Europe, although the process of centralisation in pursuit of efficiency and scale economies was probably earlier and more profound here. The Community Planning system can be seen as a response to the “policy silo” effect associated with centralisation at the local level. Place-based partnerships, such as the Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), and the Health and Social Care Integration Partnerships (HSCIPs) are very much creatures of this context. However, whether they are a part of the solution, or an addition to the problem of the “cluttered and fragmented” governance landscape identified by Campbell Christie in 2011, is a matter of judgement.

More recently the “push back” on centralisation has included the emphasis of the ‘Place Principle’ and ‘Community Wealth Building’. It is against this backdrop that the narrative of the Population Strategy and ADAP should be understood. The establishment of the Ministerial Taskforce on Population, the Convention of the Highlands and Islands (COHI) Repopulation initiative, and the subsequent Verity House Agreement are key events in this story.

A key aspect of the policy system which addresses population balance in Scotland, but which is all too often taken for granted, relates to the intervention logic, or Theory of Change (ToC) which connects the ultimate goal (moderating extreme changes in population) with the policy actions, via assumed “intermediate outcomes”. Our review of the policy literature suggests that in Scotland, intervention logics are orientated to two broad responses: (i) Direct mitigation of shrinking by attracting or retaining population. (ii) Indirect mitigation, or adaption to population trends, (either shrinking or overheating) through enhancing the wellbeing of the local population, or by adjusting the capacity of local service provision.

In terms of more detailed practical interventions, we identify seven approaches, which are observed, both singly and in combination, across Scotland’s policy landscape. These are:

1. Enhanced rural-urban connectedness/interaction.

2. Local employment creation.

3. Human capital approaches.

4. Wellbeing and place making.

5. Addressing housing shortages.

6. Community development.

7. Service provision adjustments.

The analytical framework developed in the first three chapters of the report helps us, in the final chapter, to identify a range of strengths and weaknesses associated with the orchestration of multiple policies, towards the single goal of population balance. It highlights gaps in our knowledge and provides a starting point for a more deliberately coherent approach.

Our recommendations relate to the need for the establishment of standard benchmark indicators, and the need for greater clarity regarding the relationship between population balance and other National Performance Framework objectives. In terms of standard indicators, we argue that these should go beyond simple population counts, to measure the effects of more extreme geographic redistribution of population in terms of the ‘liveability’ of places, and the wellbeing of their residents.

We suggest a stronger requirement for strategy documents such as the Local Outcome Improvement Plans to go beyond aspirations and to specify concrete and funded interventions.

A better understanding of the impact of different forms of intervention, and the interactions between them at local community level, should be a goal for Scottish Government research. This form of “place-based community impact assessment” would in a sense reverse the telescope of policy evaluation, replacing a single policy, value-for-money question, with an interest in the relative effectiveness of multiple policies within a specific local context.

Finally, mindful of the danger of adding to the institutional “clutter”, we suggest that regular and focused communication between the multiplicity of policy actors involved - both at national and local levels - in the form of some kind of “stock-taking” event could improve coherence. This effectiveness of this exercise could be strengthened by the publication of periodic “progress reports” on population balance.