Regional economic development, inclusive growth and child poverty in Scotland

Crisp et al, 2014, p.18

There is much that can be learned from the century of effort and investment devoted to regenerating deprived regions and supporting communities in the UK and Scotland. This report focuses in particular upon what can be learned about how such measures can better contribute to Scotland’s national mission to end child poverty. The principal findings from this analysis are outlined in Chapter 1; here we offer some final reflections.

It is clear from this research that those involved in Regional Economic Partnerships and Growth Deals in Scotland are concerned about child poverty and hope that their efforts will contribute to reducing it, as part of their commitment reinvigorating economically disadvantaged areas. In contrast with some of the previous approaches to economic regeneration policy described in Chapter 2, there is greater interest in considering who benefits from these policies and in promoting inclusive local and regional growth. Therefore, reducing child poverty is on the agenda of REPs and there is movement in the right direction in regional and local economic regeneration policy in Scotland.

However, the current approach to addressing child poverty in REPs could be described as somewhat technocratic rather than cultural. That is to say, while the sentiments and terminology of inclusion are expressed, there has been no corresponding reorientation yet in how economic development is conceptualised and in how it is delivered so that the significant resources devoted to regeneration are applied intentionally to reduce child poverty. For example, the academic expert interviewed as part of the contextualisation of policy provided in Chapter 2, argued that local child poverty policy remains focused mainly on mitigating negative effects rather than reshaping regional economies and places, on

While reducing child poverty is not exactly an afterthought of regional economic regeneration policy it is not a front and central priority. In general, ideas about investment and development remain conventional, and the value of growth conventional conceived is not questioned, despite its known limitations as a direct anti-poverty measure. However, the growing interest in the foundational economy is encouraging, and one example of this in practice is evident in extract 203 - where investing in childcare is recognised as an effective economic and employment policy rather than simply a ‘nice thing to do’. Similarly, the interest in the development of community wealth building indicates a shift in perspective.

It is necessary to match such reorienting in thinking with a comparable reorientation in spending. Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems to remain the case that ‘bending mainstream budgets, to target additional resources to either poorer neighbourhoods, or particular disadvantaged groups, always constitutes a step too far for local government bureaucracy’[1]. However, this is the kind of action required to meet the scale of the challenge. To put this into context: ‘The rebuilding of East Germany following reunification - perhaps a comparable challenge - is reputed to have cost €2 trillion between 1990 and 2014’[2]. Developing inclusive and sustainable regional economies which provide households with the livelihoods necessary to reduce child poverty requires a comparable commitment. While this may seem daunting - and some may say utopian - it should be noted that the cost of inactivity is even greater and the potential rewards considerable[3].