« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4 FINDINGS: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The question asked respondents their views of the socio-economic analysis underpinning the strategies in the two Programmes and the strengths, opportunities and weaknesses identified as key challenges for Structural Funds actions in the region.
Q1. Are there any additional socio-economic factors to be considered - and which Structural Funds can address - in assessing the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of Lowlands and Uplands Scotland?
In general, the socio-economic analysis was regarded positively. Approximately 27% of respondents who addressed Question 1 (22) were content with the analysis and thought that it addressed the strengths weaknesses and opportunities of the region. Approximately 16% (13) of respondents thought that the analysis was reasonably comprehensive or thorough or that it addressed most of the issues, but also suggested additional factors for inclusion or further analysis.
However, a number of respondents felt that the analysis was weak, too generalised, not detailed enough or had a number of gaps or deficiencies (approximately 10% of respondents (8)). A number of additional factors were suggested for inclusion or further analysis and these are summarised below. More specific and detailed comments have not been fully summarised below, but will be taken into consideration in revising the analysis.
General comments
A significant number of respondents (45% of those who responding (37)) felt that a greater degree of sub-regional analysis was required to recognise the large and diverse economic nature of the LUPS region. Many felt that the analysis, often at NUTS 2 level, provided a very generalised picture of the LUPS economy and that it did not demonstrate the detail of regional disparities or masked localised problems or significant regional imbalances.
There were comments about the emphasis on particular parts of the region. Some respondents (3) highlighted that the issues which affected central Scotland were not the same as those in rural areas and that not enough distinction was made of the difference. Some nuances had been overlooked to the detriment of rural and northern parts of the LUPS area. Approximately 16% of respondents (13) felt that there should have been more analysis of urban deprivation, particularly in the West of Scotland. Some respondents (2) felt that the analysis failed to recognise specific issues faced by former coalfield and textile communities.
Approximately 17% (14) respondents felt that the particular issues and challenges set out in the South of Scotland Competitiveness Strategy had not been sufficiently highlighted in the analysis. In particular, cognisance needs to be taken of the area's low GDP/capita, relatively low wages, dependence on land-based and traditional industries, ageing population and shortfalls in physical infrastructure. It was argued that the South of Scotland should be explicitly recognised as a regional area with distinct socio-economic challenges.
A small number of respondents (3) felt that more analysis should have been undertaken on the impact and reported outputs of the 2000-06 programme. One respondent felt that a single socio-economic analysis for ESF and ERDF would have enabled better analysis of synergies.
Three respondents suggested that the analysis was not fully independent and only served to provide a context to pre-identified priorities at the expense of other issues in the wider economy which could be relevant for Structural Funds support in the new programmes.
Missing target groups, areas or issues
Approximately 16% of those who responded (13) felt that the analysis failed to mention or adequately address the rising numbers of migrant labour. They felt that there were a number of issues around integrating migrant workers into the workforce which did not seem to be recognised and that there were particular skills issues to be addressed.
Approximately 11% (9) felt that the impact of recent or potential demographic changes had not been adequately addressed. In particular, there should be consideration of the implications of an ageing and declining population on the overall labour supply.
Approximately 7% (6) of respondents felt that the important issue of productivity had not been properly analysed and had to be addressed more explicitly. In particular, the link between improving labour market performance and productivity could have been explored at more length.
Approximately 8% (7) of respondents felt that ICT and the promotion of e-skills or e-business was not adequately featured. Given the focus on supporting the knowledge economy in the Community Strategic Guidelines, the omission was notable.
A small number of (2) respondents felt that, although mentioned, 'entrepreneurship' was not adequately explained. One respondent felt that more attention should be given to business incubation units. Another respondent agreed that the analysis should encompass micro/small businesses as well as non-high growth sectors. It was felt by a further two respondents that there should be more reference to the number of and need for 'growth' companies and companies 'of scale' in Scotland and the need for inward investment, internationalisation and exporting in the Scottish economy.
Several commented on sectoral targeting. One respondent questioned the list of Scottish Enterprise Priority Industries which had changed from the list provided in the consultation document. One respondent wanted to see strong support for the enhancement and sustainable competitiveness of traditional industries and recognition that this is a key challenge. They felt that forestry should be defined as a key rural sector in industry. One respondent also felt that the potential of the renewable energy sector had not been fully identified in the analysis.
Environmental issues could be emphasised. One respondent suggested that environmental sustainability should have been considered more fully in the socio-economic analysis. Another respondent felt that there had been insufficient analysis of the economic opportunities of the region's natural environment. They also felt that there should be reference to Scotland's comparatively high ecological footprint analysis and the economic threat posed by climate change.
One respondent felt that there were a number of gaps and inconsistencies within the socio-economic analysis at present in relation to tourism and a number of detailed amendments were suggested. A number of respondents (3) also suggested that the importance of urban tourism did not feature as much as would have been desirable.
Executive response
The Executive welcomes the positive response to the socio-economic analysis and the helpful suggestions made for its improvement. The analysis was undertaken by independent, external consultants with a wide remit of examining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the regional economy. The priorities were drawn by picking out the key challenges after the analysis and in line with the Community Strategic Guidelines and the added value that Structural Funds support could bring.
The analyses for the two Programmes will remain separate because of the distinctive foci of their activities. However, in terms of the specific suggestions on improvements, we will do the following:
- More sub-regional analysis will be introduced into the analysis, particularly at NUTS 2 level, depending on the appropriateness of the issue and the availability of data. Such analysis will also draw out further the specific development challenges facing different parts of the regions, especially those affecting urban and rural areas.
- Additional analysis will be provided on the issues of migrant labour, demographic changes and ICT and entrepreneurial skills.
- Productivity will be given more emphasis in the socio-economic analysis.
- The analysis of the region's key industries will be revisited, although formal sectoral targeting will be eschewed.
Some respondents commented on where the analysis could be more informed by examining the full impact of the 2000-06 programmes. The full impacts of these programmes are not known as substantial project activity is ongoing. The analysis already contains substantial work on the lessons learnt from past programmes through the sections on the mid-term evaluations and the work of the Value Added Group, but other material will be added to inform the analysis, particularly the MORI Beneficiaries Survey.
A few respondents noted the absence of detailed analysis of the environmental condition and potential of the region. As described in the Introduction above, this is part of the SEA and has been subject to a separate consultation. The results of that consultation will inform final revisions to the Operational Programmes.
All the other detailed amendments proposed in the responses will be taken into consideration.
« Previous | Contents | Next »