Author Olalekan Oyedepo
Co-production in Scottish policymaking: Between Myth and Reality
Policymaking can often feel disconnected from the people it affects most. Traditional top-down approaches have left many feeling unheard and underserved. Co-production – actively involving service users and communities in policy development – has been proposed as a solution. But does it live up to the hype? This blog explores Scotland's experiment with co-productive policymaking and its real-world impacts.
The ‘Scottish Approach’ and co-production
Co-production refers to the active involvement of service users and communities in the development and delivery of public services and also to the collaborative making of policy (Needham, 2008; Osborne et al., 2016 ). There are different types of co-production (see Chambers et al. 2021), but all represent a departure from top-down, bureaucratic models of policy making and service delivery.
Since devolution, some observers have claimed that a distinct 'Scottish approach' to policymaking has emerged characterized by a commitment to collaborative partnership working, evidence-based policy making, and a focus on outcomes rather than outputs. Through more participation and co-production, this approach is assumed to have made Scottish politics more democratic and pluralistic. Third sector organisations are key stakeholders in this approach (Howlett et al. 2020; Cairney et al. 2016).
It is still debated whether and where there really is a distinct Scottish approach to policymaking. What is clear, however, is that the Scottish Government itself subscribes to a variant of this approach – it is a key proponent of ‘co-production’. In fact, the Scottish Government claim that this approach is embedded in most of its public policy design and delivery processes (Scottish Government, 2019).
How do third sector organisations and their leaders look at this co-productive approach? Is it perceived as a ‘reality’ that has changed the ways the third sector works? To answer these questions for my MSc dissertation, I took an exploratory qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of stakeholder perspectives on the ‘Scottish approach’ to policymaking. Purposive sampling was used to recruit nine participants representing nine third sector organisations in Scotland. This targeted sample covers those with direct experience in policymaking and government-third sector relations. I asked them about their experiences with co-production and their perceptions of the Scottish Government's approach. I then analysed their responses using thematic analysis.
All of the third sector organizations involved in interviews work on various aspects of health and wellbeing, ranging from mental health support to community health initiatives and patient advocacy groups. Their involvement in co-production processes has direct implications for how health policies are developed and implemented in Scotland. The insights gained from this study therefore shed some light on the realities of co-production in Scottish health policymaking, revealing both the potential and the challenges of this approach in addressing public health issues
The realities of co-production
Through the interviews, seven themes emerged which allow a better understanding of how the Scottish Government’s stated intent to policy making through co-production materialises.
Centralization of power and unequal partnerships
Partnership between government and third sector was commonly described as unequal, given the significant power differentials. As one interviewee put it: "The overwhelming feeling is that it's top-down still." From choosing priority issues to unilaterally setting rigid timetables for input by third sector organisations – government officials are seen, by interviewees, in control over ‘how things are done’. That means that despite governmental commitments to co-production, authority remains concentrated in the hands of the Scottish Government.
Funding relationships and influence
The interviews showed that the funding relationship between third sector organizations and government matters when it comes to co-production. Perhaps unsurprisingly, organizations receiving substantial government funding feel constrained in their capacity to challenge government. One interviewee wondered: “If you’re wholly dependent on somebody, can you have a completely equal relationship?” This also connects to an inability to be wholly transparent about frustrations when funded by government partners: “There is a power inequality based around that is almost understandable, but... We don't feel a situation where we could be totally honest all the time”.
Selectivity in engagement
The interviews suggest that the Scottish Government is perceived to favour engagement with what were described as ‘insider organizations’ and with larger, better resourced organisations. One interviewee candidly said that "there's a selectivity in who gets listened to and who doesn't."
Agendas, timelines, and elections
Another finding from the interviews is that policy agenda and parameters for co-production continue to be set by the Scottish Government. They define, in the main, what the priority issues are and determine the timeframes. This situation is intensified, according to some interviewees, during election periods when political considerations can override substantive engagement. As one interviewee described it: “The political imperatives of governing parties will always trump that process”.
The ‘ether’, transparency, and accountability
Interviewees spoke about a “black box” phase of policy development during which it is unclear if and how their efforts of engaging with co-productive processes have actually made a difference to the government’s thinking. As one interviewee said: "Things sometimes go into a black box or the ether. We engage in meetings and discussions, and then there's silence".
Capacity and co-production
A consistent challenge cited across the interviews is the significant capacity constraints faced by third sector organizations. Third sector organisations, especially smaller ones, often lack the requisite staffing, funding and time to participate meaningfully in co-production processes. One interviewee said “Meaningful co-production as well as consultation... takes a long time”, while another said that although there was a “desire to engage, the resources and time are lacking."
Collaboration
Despite the challenges which interviewees spoke about, there were also examples of meaningful collaboration. Some interviewees said that co-production has opened spaces for pluralistic contributions and created new relationships. These provided the foundations for "really good examples of where the sector, local government, and national government... were all part of the same team”. Another interviewee added that "collaboration is not without its challenges, especially when there are power dynamics at play. But the intent to collaborate and co-produce is unmistakably present."
Conclusion
It seems that there is a gap between what the Scottish Government intends for co-production and the experiences of third sector representatives. The interviews suggest that co-production can feel superficial and somewhat tokenistic. An interviewee remarked that "there's a lot of talk about co-production, but in practice, it often feels like we're just ticking a box." However, the interviews also showed that at times they felt that outreach to them and interest in co-production was genuine and meaningful.
Many third sector organizations work directly or indirectly on health-related issues, from mental health support to community wellbeing initiatives. If co-production in policymaking is not functioning as intended, it could lead to policies that are less effective or responsive to community needs. Overall, there was an optimism about the government’s willingness to engage, but also significant challenges in translating this willingness into meaningful co-production practices. Addressing these challenges could lead to more effective and inclusive policies that better serve the health of Scotland's diverse communities.
The full dissertation is available on request to the author at Olalekan Oyedepo
References
Cairney, P., Russell, S., & St Denny, E. (2016). The ‘Scottish approach’ to policy and policymaking: what issues are territorial and what are universal? Policy & Politics, 44(3), 333-350. Available at https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14353331264538
Chambers, J.P. et al. (2021) “Six modes of co-production for sustainability,” Nature Sustainability, 4(11), pp. 983–996. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2020). Studying Public Policy: Principles and Processes. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social policy and society, 7(2), 221-231. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746407004174
Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z. and Strokosch, K. (2016) “Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?” Public Management Review, 18(5), pp. 639–653. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927.
Scottish Government (2019) “The Scottish Approach to Service Design (SAtSD),” The Scottish Government [Preprint]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/the-scottish-approach-to-service-design/