Taking the long view: futures thinking and why it matters

Photo by Kelly Lacy on Pexels.com

Take yourself back to the beginning of the last decade, Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister, the term Brexit has yet to be coined, and the Nokia 1280 was the world’s best-selling phone. In the ten years that followed it’s no understatement to say that the world is almost an unrecognisably different place. And that’s before we even discuss the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Consider the widespread roll-out of high-speed internet and the adoption of smartphones: the development of both of these technologies has massively expanded the locations in which we can learn, work, shop, and consume and produce media. In 2010, 28% of the UK population actively used a smartphone, by 2019, it had almost trebled to 82%.

Developing the digital economy

The widespread adoption of devices that provide users with the ability to easily access the internet and download applications has created an entirely new sector of the economy. Apple estimates that the iOS App Store in the UK alone has generated more than £3.6 billion in total earnings and supports up to 330,000 jobs. Analysis by Vodafone has estimated that the UK internet economy is now worth £82 billion – that’s 5.7% of the UK’s GDP.

Put simply, in the space of a decade, technological advancements have enabled the development of an almost entirely new sector of the economy and changed the way we all interact with each other.

Unfortunately, not everyone experienced the benefits of the digital age, as can be seen by the numerous closures of big-name high-street retailers. Many of these failed to anticipate the pace and extent to which consumers would embrace e-commerce and online-only retailers, such as Asos and Amazon. The failure to anticipate the speed at which people would begin to use smartphones, gain access to high-speed internet, and shop online is a prime example of the need for futures thinking.

Embracing uncertainty

Futures thinking (sometimes known as strategic foresight) is an approach that can help identify the drivers of change that will shape the world in the future. Crucially, futures thinking is not about predicting the future, rather, it’s about considering how the numerous plausible potential futures may have an impact on today’s decisions or policymaking. A key element of futures thinking is the need to embrace uncertainty, and accept that our future is not predetermined and can be altered at any time, by any number of factors.

Techniques that are commonly used within futures thinking include:

–       Horizon scanning

–       Axes of uncertainty

–       SWOT analysis

–       Backcasting

However, it’s important to acknowledge that there is no set approach to futures thinking; it’s flexible and can be adapted to meet the needs of any organisation. This flexibility is something that the Government Office for Science highlights as a key benefit, as it actively encourages “creative approaches” and supports a high level of customisation.

If we apply this to the previously mentioned example of the widespread adoption of smartphones in the 2010s, you can see how futures thinking may have been a useful approach to help decide how much focus traditional retailers placed on developing their online stores. For example, most of the evidence at the time concurred that the use of smartphones and e-commerce would gradually grow. However, the pace at which they would grow was relatively unpredictable.

Therefore, a futures thinking approach may have considered how different paces of smartphone adoption may impact the number of people shopping online. This may have been useful to determine the level of investment required to develop an online platform that would meet the demands of an ever-increasing number of online shoppers.

Creating a futures culture

Taking a long view and considering how future events may impact the decisions you make today can have several benefits. One of these is the development of more resilient policies which can take advantage of changing circumstances, and mitigate against potential risks. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (New Zealand) contends that this approach allows for the creation of “policy that helps shape the future to promote your desired outcomes and prevent undesirable events”.

Additionally, the Government Office for Science, argues that even just by undertaking futures thinking exercises, an organisation’s focus can be shifted towards a more long-term outlook. In turn, this can generate new ideas and approaches, which can lead to innovative solutions to potential future challenges.

In short, futures thinking can facilitate an entire culture change, and create organisations that are more responsive and proactive in addressing emerging opportunities and challenges.

Limitations

Naturally, futures thinking does have its limitations. It’s not always an appropriate approach and it cannot anticipate every possible eventuality.

For futures thinking to be successful, it’s important to recognise that it provides the best results in situations where there is a great deal of uncertainty. As a result, in scenarios where there is relative certainty surrounding changes that may affect a policy, there is little benefit to adopting a futures thinking approach.

Futures thinking can also be complex, trying to envision and anticipate numerous eventualities can be difficult and requires an element of trial-and-error to explore the tools and approaches that will be useful for each organisation. In particular, it’s important to consider the scope and objectives of any futures thinking exercise, as there is potential to take too wide a view of an issue and over-extrapolate data. This runs the risk of ignoring the context of an issue, which may highlight that certain scenarios won’t conform to typical linear prediction models.

Final thoughts

Amid a global pandemic, where certainty is regularly sought after but rarely found, a futures thinking approach may be useful to help those who make decisions and create policy.

Lockdowns, vaccines, and other public health mitigations do look like they will provide us with a chance to live with the virus , and get back to something that resembles normality. However, the potential for new variants of concern to develop and spread around the world creates a level of uncertainty. Futures thinking provides the framework in which to consider how each of these potential eventualities, may impact the decisions and policies made today.

In short, in a world where certainly is hard to come by, futures thinking may provide us with a way in which to continue to create policy and make decisions that can continue to be advanced no matter what the future brings. However, for this to happen, it’s important to remember that no one can truly predict the future.


If you enjoyed this article you might like to read:

–       Changing government, changing society: what now for public innovation?

–       Implementation science: why using evidence doesn’t guarantee success

–       What works now: how can we use evidence more effectively in policymaking?

Follow us on Twitter to see which topic areas are interesting our research team.

Devolving health and social care in England: an opportunity to transform how we approach health and care?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In recent years, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has increasingly encouraged the transfer of powers over health and social care in England away from central government and towards city regions. These bodies, DHSC argues, are uniquely placed to understand the challenges faced by their local populations, the capacities and expertise of their local NHS and to develop plans for the future. This should enable them to approach health at a local level, promoting increased delivery of care in the community, and a greater integration between health and care services.

Putting local places at the centre of “Build back better”

In August 2020 the Health Devolution Commission launched its final report, Building back health and prosperity. Among other themes, like taking a “health in all policies approach”, the report found that devolving accountability and power to a more local level creates the potential to understand communities and places better, and to meet their needs.

The NHS Long Term Plan has also outlined a new direction for the NHS based on the principle of collaboration rather than competition, and the introduction of new structures such as Integrated Care Systems, Integrated Care Providers and Primary Care Networks. These partnerships bring health and social care commissioners together to plan and deliver integrated and person-centred care.

In the context of “building back better”, awareness of how our external experiences and contexts impact our health and wellbeing (for example the impact of poverty, deprivation, housing, and unemployment) is increasingly important.

Beyond the immediate recovery from the pandemic, health devolution could be one way of opening up the possibility of integrating not just disparate services within the NHS – or even NHS and social care services in a locality – but bringing together in a combined strategy and structure all of the services, systems and partners in a community that have an impact upon the health of a local population, and the care services to better meet their health needs.

“It doesn’t have to be a battle”- partnerships and balance are the key to effective devolution

The move away from centralised processes and organisations towards more local ones can sometimes be portrayed as a rejection or an attempt to “break free” from central government. However, practitioners have been increasingly stressing that devolution does not mean complete independence, and that while improved local decision making will improve outcomes for local people, that does not mean that the need for some centralised decision making is completely removed.

On the contrary, some decisions should and will be taken at a national level, but the ability to distribute power, decision making and accountability to a local level will have significant positive impacts for improving “citizen voice”, transparency and co-production in decision making.

This is where the Health Devolution Commission argues that balance, communication, and partnership between the local and national infrastructure needs to be aligned so that devolution can be successful and sustainable. Integrated planning and management of long-term health care strategies is important, as is the ability to bring citizens and local decision makers into discussions about national health policy.

The Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector, including patient voice and carers organisations, also plays an important role in linking together services and communities. As well as partnering to deliver services, these organisations also often offer vital bridges between statutory systems and those communities which can often be excluded from engagement with services or who can find it harder to access them. The commission also emphasised the importance of bringing these bodies into the conversation on devolution going forwards as they will be invaluable partners in the process.

Photo by Matthias Zomer on Pexels.com

DevoManc providing the blueprint?

In 2016, as part of a pilot, control of the health and social care budget for Greater Manchester was transferred to a partnership team in the area comprising local authorities, clinical commissioning groups, NHS foundation trusts and NHS England.

The combined authority identified that the health of its population was one of the key obstacles to its economic growth. By relating the concept of regional economic prosperity with health, they began to see health in a completely different way – as part of a wider plan and an investment for growth, not a burden.

“It’s better to have decisions made locally, because local people understand what local problems are and what Greater Manchester needs. We need to work together.”

Lord Peter Smith, Chair of Greater Manchester Health and Care Board

The Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership are working in partnership with other sectors including education and housing to support everything from good eating habits and exercise to education and everyone’s ability to earn a decent living. The partnership is taking action to give children the start they need, support independence in old age, tackle illness earlier on and even prevent it altogether by improving the lifestyles of local people.

Other areas of England are also currently undertaking their own health devolution journeys, including London, West Yorkshire and Harrogate, as well as some other combined authority areas. However, one of the big challenges is that currently, while we can learn from the experiences of those already on their devolution journey, there is no common, consistent or comprehensive understanding of what good heath devolution looks like, full evaluations of the benefits it brings or overarching strategies on how it should be developed.

This is something that will need to be addressed if health devolution is to be successfully rolled out across England.

Final thoughts

Devolution of health to a more local level provides an opportunity to tackle the big public health challenges of our time at source, and to create a better, more joined up community health ecosystem. It also provides the chance to share and collaborate, learning from best practice and delivering improved health and social care services at a regional and national level.

It has been suggested that the coronavirus pandemic, while traumatic in more ways than one for the NHS and its staff, may provide the re-setting point needed to implement some of the changes proposed in relation to greater health devolution. Proponents of this view argue that improved funding to support effective and high quality care, improved integration between health and social care, and greater positioning of health and assessment of the impact of decisions on health across all policy areas, should be among the top priorities as the country looks to recover from the pandemic.

As the Health Devolution Commission underlines:

The pandemic has shown we cannot go back to the way things were. We need a ‘new normal’ and we believe that comprehensive health devolution is the only viable solution to the challenges the country now faces.”


If you enjoyed this article you might also like to read:

Follow us on Twitter to find out which topics are interesting our research team

The year of living differently: reviewing The Knowledge Exchange blog in 2020

2020 has been a year like no other. A microscopic virus – 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair – has dominated, disrupted and redefined the way we live and work.

Although the pandemic is primarily a public health emergency, its effects have been felt in all areas of public and social policy, from economic development and employment to transport and the environment. Throughout this year, our blog has reflected on the impacts of the coronavirus and the restrictions introduced to prevent its spread.

The COVID-19 knock-on

While the coronavirus pandemic has dominated the news headlines, it has also obscured the knock-on effects on the NHS. In October, we reported on the impacts of delays to preventative healthcare measures, such as screening and routine medical care in the form of pre-planned operations for long-term chronic and non-urgent conditions.

As the blog post noted, the impacts have been wide-ranging, including not only delays in care for case of physical ill health, but also for those seeking treatment for mental health conditions:

“Research suggests that incidence of mental illness during the coronavirus pandemic increased. However, the numbers of people accessing services and being referred for treatment have not increased proportionate to this.”

The ‘hidden epidemic’

Long before the coronavirus pandemic, domestic violence had become known as a ‘hidden epidemic’ in the UK. In September, our blog highlighted the unintended consequences of quarantine for domestic abuse victims.

After the UK entered lockdown in March, calls and online enquiries to the UK’s National Domestic Abuse line increased by 25%. Three-quarters of victims told a BBC investigation that lockdown had made it harder for them to escape their abusers and in many cases had intensified the abuse they received.

Despite additional government funding, the local authorities and charities which support victims of domestic violence have been struggling with the financial fallout from the pandemic. Even so,  important partnerships have been formed between local government, educational institutions and third sector bodies to provide safe spaces for women and their children fleeing violence. Among these was an initiative at the University of Cambridge:

St Catherine’s College formed a partnership with Cambridge Women’s Aid to provide over 1000 nights of secure supported accommodation during the lockdown period.

‘Same storm, different boats’

As the recent Marmot review has stressed, the coronavirus pandemic has exposed and deepened many of the deep-rooted inequalities in our society, including gender, ethnicity and income.  It has also shone a light on more recent inequalities, such as the growth of precarious employment among sections of the population.

In July, we looked at the uneven economic impact of the pandemic, focusing on the heavy price being paid by young people, women, disabled people and Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities.

Women often work in the frontline of care services and have had to juggle childcare during lockdown. BAME communities are over-represented in key-worker jobs, and so were particularly vulnerable to coronavirus.

And although there has been much talk about ‘building back better’, our blog post drew attention to the observations of Dr Sally Witcher, CEO of Inclusion Scotland during a Poverty Alliance webinar:

“She asks whether indeed we should want to build back, when the old normal didn’t work for a large proportion of people, particularly those with disabilities. Dr Witcher also questions ‘who’ is doing the building, and whether the people designing this new future will have the knowledge and lived experience of what really needs to change.”

The impacts of a pandemic

Many other aspects of the impact of COVID-19 have been covered in our blog:

  • How housing providers have embraced the fluidity of an emergency situation, including tackling homelessness, engaging effectively with tenants and addressing mental ill health.
  • Digital healthcare solutions for those with coronavirus and for the continuity of care and day-to-day running of the NHS.
  • Creating and managing a COVID-secure workplace.
  • How COVID-19 is changing public transport, including an acceleration towards contactless payment and mobile ticketing.
  • The additional challenges of the pandemic facing autistic children and young people.
  • The impact of the coronavirus restrictions on the arts.
  • The role of green new deals in tackling climate change and economic inequality as part of the post-Covid recovery.

Beyond the virus

Although the pandemic has been at the forefront of all our minds this year, The Knowledge Exchange blog has also taken the time to focus on other important issues in public and social policy:

We’ve also taken advantage of the ‘new normal’ experience of remote working to join a number of webinars, and to report back on the observations and ideas emerging from them. Most recently, our blogs have focused on a series of webinars organised by Partners in Planning, which included contributions on how the planning system can help address climate change.

Final thoughts

The health, economic and social impacts of the pandemic are likely to be long-lasting – restrictions on travel, work and socialising will continue into the spring, and insolvencies and unemployment numbers are likely to rise. And the continuing uncertainty over the UK’s new trading relationship with the European Union will generate additional challenges.   

But, as a frequently difficult, often challenging and sometimes distressing year draws to a close, there is cause for optimism about 2021. Vaccines to prevent the spread of the virus have been developed with lightning speed. Across the UK people are already being vaccinated, with greater numbers set to receive the jab in the coming months.

Here at The Knowledge Exchange, we’ll continue to highlight the key issues facing public and social policy and practice as we move towards the post-Covid era.

Season’s greetings

It’s with even greater meaning than ever before that we wish all our readers a happy Christmas, and a healthy, prosperous and happy new year.

Best wishes from everyone at The Knowledge Exchange: Morwen, Christine, Heather, Donna, Rebecca, Scott, Hannah and James.


Follow us on Twitter to find out what topic areas are interesting our research team.

Build back better: is now the time for Green New Deals? – Part 2

A window of opportunity

In policymaking, there is a concept known as the “Overton Window”, which describes the range of policies that politicians can propose without being considered too extreme by the population at large. This window of opportunity can be shifted and can allow for policies that in the past may have been considered unthinkable and radical to become mainstream and even sensible.

The impact of Covid-19 and the public health measures that have been required to suppress the virus, have undoubtedly resulted in a shift in the “Overton Window”. Policy interventions, such as the Job Retention Scheme and national lockdown, which involved massive amounts of government spending and restrictions to every aspect of our day-to-day lives, suddenly became normal and were largely approved of by the public.

In these circumstances, the concept of the Green New Deal, a policy package which involves large amounts of government spending, designed to create green jobs, develop green infrastructure and modernise the economy, may no longer be such an unfeasible idea.

Build back better: a green recovery

The economic impact of Covid-19 is expected to result in a 5.2% contraction of global GDP, amounting to the deepest global depression since 1945. In order to recover from this contraction, governments are formulating unprecedentedly large economic stimulus packages, designed to mitigate the economic and social damage created by the pandemic. Already there are numerous examples of governments utilising aspects of the Green New Deal within their economic recovery plans.

European Union

Next Generation EU – A European Green Deal

Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, the European Commission was already working on creating a European Green Deal, which would support the EU transition to climate neutrality by 2050. After the onset of the pandemic, the European Commission moved to position the Green Deal as a key pillar of the EU’s €750 billion recovery package, known as Next Generation EU. 25% of the recovery package has been dedicated to funding climate action, whilst the entire package features a commitment that any money spent as part of the EU’s economic recovery must “do no harm” to the EU’s climate neutrality goal. The recovery package includes policies that are similar in nature to other Green Deals, including:

  • a €40 billion ‘Just Transition Fund’, to alleviate the socio-economic impacts of the green transition and diversify economic activity;
  • a €91 billion a year fund to improve home energy efficiency and develop low carbon heating;
  • the introduction of an EU-wide border tax on carbon-intensive industrial imports with the potential to raise €14 billion.

French Government

France Relaunch

The French government’s recently announced €100 billion stimulus package, includes a €30 billion package of measures designed to aid France’s transition to carbon neutrality. The measures set out within the package incorporate core elements from Green New Deals, such as developing cleaner forms of transport and improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The package includes the following green measures:

  • a €11 billion investment in developing and encouraging the use of green transport methods, nearly €5 billion of which will be used to upgrade rail lines to encourage freight traffic from road to rail;
  • a €6 billion investment to help improve the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings;
  • A €2 billion investment to help develop the hydrogen sector.

Scottish Government

Protecting Scotland, Renewing Scotland

Within this year’s Scottish Government Programme, it is evident from the first page that it views the need for economic recovery as an opportunity to create a  “fairer, greener and wealthier country”. The programme explicitly describes the measures contained as “the next tranche of our Green New Deal” and borrows extensively from existing Green New Deals, with policies including:

  • a £100 million green Job Creation Fund;
  • a £1.6 billion investment to decarbonise the heating of homes and other buildings;
  • a £62 million Energy Transition Fund to support businesses in the oil, gas and energy sectors over the next five years to grow and diversify;
  • capitalisation of the Scottish National Investment Bank with £2 billion over ten years, with a primary mission to support the transition to net zero emissions.

UK Government

A Plan for Jobs

A key element of the UK Government’s plans to support and develop the labour market is the creation of green jobs, through investment in infrastructure, decarbonisation and maintenance projects. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a principle which is at the core of the Green New Deal. The Plan for Jobs includes similar proposals, such as:

  • a £2 billion Green Homes Grant scheme that will provide homeowners and landlords with vouchers to spend on improving the energy efficiency of homes across the UK;
  • a £1 billion Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme that will offer grants to public sector bodies, including schools and hospitals, to fund both energy efficiency and low carbon heat upgrades;
  • a £40 million Green Jobs Challenge Fund for environmental charities and public authorities to create and protect 5,000 jobs in England.

Final thoughts

The concept of the Green New Deal is one that appears to evolve and shift as time goes on. This is unfortunately to be expected as time runs out for governments to take meaningful action to avert rising global temperatures. The transition to carbon neutrality is one that will undoubtedly result in massive changes to almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, and therefore it is not surprising that the journey to reach this point may require bold and unprecedented action.

However, prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, it would have been unimaginable to consider the levels of spending and intervention that governments would be required to take in order to implement a Green New Deal. The shift to carbon neutrality involves a complete reimagining of the economy and requires a great deal of public support, in particular when the energy transition may threaten the jobs of those who work in carbon-intensive industries.

In a post-Covid era, the concept of governments spending huge sums of money and making unprecedented interventions is now our everyday reality. The economic consequences of the pandemic will require an extraordinary response to ensure that its legacy is not one of increasing levels of unemployment, inequality and stagnation. In this new world, the ambition and wide-ranging nature of the Green New Deal may no longer be seen as unfeasible. In fact, as can be seen in the UK and Europe, governments are already looking to implement various elements of the Green New Deal as part of their economic recovery packages. Perhaps the Green New Deal is about to have its time.


Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Part one of this blog post was published on Monday 14 September.

Read some of our other blogs on climate change and the impacts of Covid-19:

Build back better: is now the time for Green New Deals? – Part 1

From the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement to the pressure placed on governments by worldwide school strikes, the issue of climate change and its effects on the world around us has increasingly risen to the top of the political agenda. Across the world, governments have begun to take various forms of action in an attempt to prevent further rises in global temperatures.

In particular, the concept of a package of measures designed to address climate change and economic inequality, known as the Green New Deal, has gained particular prominence in the past few years.

This two-part blog looks at the concept of the Green New Deal, how it has influenced global policy and its relevance as a means of economic recovery in a post-Covid world.

What is the Green New Deal?

The original concept of a Green New Deal was proposed in a report published by the New Economics Foundation in 2008. The report set out a range of policy proposals that would allow the UK to recover from the global financial crisis, whilst tackling the threat posed by climate change. The scale and ambition of the Green New Deal was largely inspired by the wide-ranging New Deal package of reforms and investment carried out by President Roosevelt, that enabled the United States to recover from the Great Depression.

In a similar vein, the report made recommendations that addressed a wide range of policy areas,  these included:

  • a £50 billion per year programme to create a low-carbon energy system that will involve making “every building a power station” by maximising energy efficiency and renewable energy generation;
  • creating and training a “carbon army” of workers to provide the human resources required for a vast environmental restructuring programme;
  • re-regulating the domestic financial system to ensure that the creation of money at low rates of interest is consistent with democratic aims, financial stability, social justice and environmental sustainability;
  • minimising corporate tax evasion by clamping down on tax havens and corporate financial reporting.

Green New Deal: 2.0

Over time the Green New Deal has evolved and has spread internationally. Following the 2018 US Elections, the concept gained increasing prominence in the United States. Advanced by newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, the Green New Deal set out a vision for the United States to transition to become carbon neutral in just ten years.

In a similar vein to the ambition of both the New Deal and the original Green New Deal, the package proposed included a variety of measures that crossed a range of policy areas, including:

  • meeting 100% of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources;
  • upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
  • providing all people of the United States with high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature;
  • guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.

Criticism of Green New Deals

The concept of the Green New Deal is often criticised for being too expensive to be implemented. Opponents of the US Green New Deal believe the timeline for the United States to become carbon neutral in just ten years is unrealistic, and the estimated cost of  $12.3 trillion is too high. Critics also argue that the proposals are too vague and often fail to consider the seismic changes the measures may have on wider society, particularly for those who work in industries directly impacted by the energy transition.

In short, critics of a Green New Deal believe that as a package it is simply too large, both in ambition and price, to be implemented successfully. The level of government action required to implement such wide-scale reform would be unprecedented in peacetime and could potentially require citizens to make substantial changes to the way they live their lives. Until wider society is willing to accept a substantial increase in government spending and changes to their way of life, it is unlikely that a Green New Deal will be able to be effectively implemented.


Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Part two of this blog post is available now.

Read some of our other blogs on climate change and the impacts of Covid-19:

“Same storm, different boats”: addressing covid-19 inequalities and the ‘long term challenge’

MS Queen Elizabeth in Stornoway

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted upon almost every aspect of life.  However, this impact has not been felt by everyone equally. Some groups of people have been particularly badly affected – both by the virus itself and by the negative social and economic consequences of social distancing measures.  The phrase ‘same storm, different boats’ has been used widely to emphasise this.

The pandemic has exposed and deepened many of the deep-rooted inequalities in our society, including gender, ethnicity and income.  It has also shone a light on more recent inequalities too, such as the growth of precarious employment among sections of the population.

As we move out of lockdown, the long term consequences of the pandemic will continue to be felt unevenly across different sections of society, with those on the lowest incomes being most vulnerable.

As thoughts turn to recovery, there is a growing sense that now is the time to consider how we can create a more equitable society that benefits those most in need.

 

The long-term challenge

During a recent Poverty Alliance webinar, ‘Build Back Better: Poverty, Health and Covid-19: emerging lessons from Scotland’, Dr Gerry McCartney, Head of the Public Health Observatory at Public Health Scotland noted that the coronavirus pandemic was causing three concurrent public health crises:

  • the direct impact of the virus (through ill health and/or death);
  • the indirect impacts on health and social care services (e.g. reduced hospital admissions/referrals, delayed diagnoses); and
  • the long term unintended consequences of physical distancing measures

Dr McCartney’s recent research sets out the different groups at particular risk from covid-19 and outlines a number of ways in which the unintended consequences of physical distancing measures may negatively impact upon health via a complex set of pathways – including reduced physical activity, fear, anxiety, stress, boredom and loneliness, economic stresses related to reduced income and unemployment, the impact of the loss of education, as well as the risk of abuse and exploitation of children not in school, substance abuse, and domestic abuse and violence.

Dr McCartney has also been involved in a project that sought to quantify the direct impact of the pandemic in terms of years of life lost.  The results showed that, over 10 years, the impact of inequality on life expectancy is actually at least six times greater than the direct impact of the pandemic itself.

Dr McCartney referred to this as the “long-term challenge” and argues that in order to address these inequalities, it is crucial that society aims to ‘build back better’ following the pandemic.

Build Back Better

But what does this mean?  Put simply, Build back better argues that pandemic offers an unprecedented opportunity to refocus society on the principles of equity and sustainability.

A recent paper by the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) sets out 10 key principles for ‘building back better’, covering a range of environmental, social and governance issues:

It highlights international examples of each of these principles in action, for example, speeding up the adoption of the doughnut economics framework in Amsterdam in response to the pandemic, and through the wellbeing principles implemented by the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) group, consisting of Iceland, New Zealand and Scotland (and recently joined Wales).

Indeed, in Scotland, the independent Advisory Group on Economic Recovery, established by the Scottish Government, have recently published their findings on how to support Scotland’s economy to recover from the pandemic.  It states that “establishing a robust, wellbeing economy matters more than ever”.

Unequal employment impact

One of the guiding principles set out by the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery is to “tackle inequality by mitigating the risks of unemployment, especially among groups hit hard by the crisis”.

Indeed, unemployment following the pandemic is unlikely to affect everyone equally – women, young people, BAME individuals and the low-paid are predicted to suffer the brunt.

In a subsequent Poverty Alliance webinar, ‘Addressing unemployment after Covid-19’, Tony Wilson from the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) highlights the scale of the problem.  He states that unemployment is rising faster than at any point in our lifetimes (barring a blip in 1947), and is likely to increase by 3 million as a result of the pandemic.

Again, the impact of this will be uneven.  Anna Ritchie Allan, director of Close the Gap, discusses the impact upon women in particular.  As well as being more likely to work in a sector that has been shut down, women are also more likely to have lost their job, had their hours cut, or been furloughed. As women are also usually the primary carers of their children, they have disproportionately affected by the closure of schools and home learning.

A recent report by Close the Gap highlights how the impending post-covid downturn is different than previous recessions, as the restrictions imposed to tackle the virus have impacted most heavily upon sectors that employ large numbers of female (e.g. hospitality, retail, care), as well as services that enable women’s participation in the labour market (e.g. nurseries, schools, and social care). Young and Black and minority ethnic (BME) women have been particularly affected.

For example, Kathleen Henehan, Research and Policy Analyst at the Resolution Foundation, considers how young people’s employment prospects have been affected by the pandemic. She notes that young people leaving education are likely to be worst affected.  However, again, inequalities exist – with those with lower levels of qualifications being particularly affected, and women and BME individuals within those groups affected most of all.

According to Anna Allan, policy to address unemployment as a result of the pandemic needs to be both gender-sensitive and intersectional – taking account of the fact that women are not one homogenous group, and ensuring that any job creation is not just providing more ‘jobs for the boys’.  For example, recent research by the Women’s Budget Group shows that investing in care would create 7 times as many jobs as the same investment in construction: 6.3 as many for women and 10% more for men.

Building forwards

In a third webinar, ‘Disability, rights and covid-19: learning for the future’, Dr Sally Witcher, CEO of Inclusion Scotland, suggests that as well as exposing and deepening existing inequalities, the coronavirus pandemic has created the scope for new inequalities to be created – ‘faultlines’ created by the differing impacts of the virus.

Dr Witcher questions the term ‘build back better’ – she asks whether indeed we should want to build back, when the old normal didn’t work for a large proportion of people, particularly those with disabilities. Dr Witcher also questions ‘who’ is doing the building, and whether the people designing this new future will have the knowledge and lived experience of what really needs to change.

Dr Witcher suggests that for any attempt to ‘build back better’ to be meaningful, it needs to reach out to the people that don’t currently have a voice – the people who have been most heavily affected by the virus.  Not only do these groups need to be involved, but they need to be leading the discussion about what a post-covid future looks like.

A post-covid future

Whilst the coronavirus pandemic has had a massive, devastating impact on people and economies around the world, it has created an opportunity to reflect on what is important to us as individuals and as a society.

There is strong public demand for change. According to a new YouGov poll, only 6% of the public want to return to the same type of economy as before the coronavirus pandemic.

Building back better recognises that addressing the causes of the deep-rooted and long-standing inequalities in our society is critical to a successful post-covid recovery.

There is also a need to protect and enhance public services, address issues of low-pay and insecure work, and prioritise wellbeing and the environment through a ‘green recovery’.

As Tressa Burke, of the Glasgow Disability Alliance, states:

History will recount how we all responded to the coronavirus outbreak.  We need to ensure that the story told demonstrates our commitment, as a society, to protecting everyone from harm, particularly those most at risk of the worst impacts of covid.”


For further discussion of the wellbeing economy, you may be interested in our blog post ‘How well is your economy? Moving beyond GDP as an indicator of success

The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. 

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Changing government, changing society: what now for public innovation?

Image: CC Ross Findon via Unsplash

States of Change is an independent, global non-profit organisation which focuses on supporting and promoting learning around public innovation. During June, they hosted an online festival, bringing together practitioners, academics and policymakers from around the world in conversation. The recordings of all the sessions are still available online and in this blog we reflect on some of the discussions.

In the UK, we’ve seen over the last decade the growth and mainstreaming of government-supported initiatives, such as the network of What Works centres, and innovation centres such as Y Lab in Wales.

We’ve also seen the high profile introduction and use of agile methods and service design approaches, such as in the Government Digital Service and Gov.UK.

The question remains, however, how to build capacity for innovation at all levels of government and the public sector. To be successful this requires public sector managers and employees to be supported to develop the skills, mindset and culture that enables innovation.

We’ve written before on this blog about the transformational approach to public sector innovation in countries such as Singapore and Estonia. And during the States of Change Learning Festival there were some great discussions on international experiences. Of particular note, given the current UK Government’s stated desire to reform the civil service, was a webinar on How Singapore Learns, which explored how the Singapore government had, over a number of years, developed capabilities for forward thinking, openness to new ideas and agility.

From ideas to practice

Charles Landry, famous for developing the concept of the creative city, participated in a discussion during the festival on what being creative at an organisational or system-wide level actually means. He noted that what the current pandemic has done to generate urgency and a sense of focus within public sector systems, which may have included toying with small tweaks to bureaucracies, or taking an innovation approach built on numerous small-scale pilots or projects.

There were also sessions looking at tools and methodologies for public innovation, such as behavioural science and public innovation labs. And a discussion between Aarathi Krishnan and Panthea Lee highlighted the need for those working in government to recognise their own privilege. Questions such as “whose voices are we hearing and who is out in the cold?” and “who’s in the room when we ‘imagine’ new futures and how are we making the future just and equitable?” may seem challenging but they are necessary in order to build a different and better future.

How governments think

Another thought-provoking session was a conversation between Geoff Mulgan (Professor of Collective Intelligence, Public Policy and Social Innovation) and Aaron Maniam (Deputy Secretary in the Singapore Government) on how governments “think”. Mulgan highlighted two challenges for government that have been brought to the fore during the pandemic. Firstly, there is a need for new skills and transparent communication about the use of competing and often contradictory knowledge in decision making. Secondly, there’s a need for a new ecosystem of data governance, which would offer protection and public trust about the use of personal data by government. Interestingly, the session also highlighted the differing use of metaphors and language to describe the role of government. How ‘government’ is talked about shapes our view on what it could and should do. For example, is government a brain, or a war machine, or a facilitator, or a steward for future generations?

Evolving public innovation

The COVID crisis has forced rapid advances in how governments observe, make sense of patterns, use models and plan big interventions. They’ve had to make use of data of all kinds, draw on complex scientific advice, and mobilise local and national systems all while maintaining public trust and compliance.

As we move into the recovery planning phase, there is now a need for medium-term and longer-term visions on how every policy area could be different in the future, from health to social care to education to transport to urban planning. This use of the imagination has traditionally been seen as the specialist realm of futurists and horizon scanners. It also requires strong storytelling, to create confidence and acceptance of change. Whether governments around the world are able to leverage new visions, will determine whether the rapid changes we have seen in response to COVID-19 will lead to genuine positive transformations or ultimately just a return to the status quo.


Enjoy this article? Read more from the Knowledge Exchange blog on public sector innovation …

And follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Guest post: Economic effects of coronavirus lockdowns are staggering – but health recovery must be prioritised

By Pushan Dutt, INSEAD

In all my years as an economist, I have never seen a graph like the one below. It shows unemployment claims in the US – observe the spike for the week ending March 21. The global financial crisis, the dot-com crash, Black Monday, oil price shocks, 9/11, none of these historic shocks are even visible in the graph.

Figures: US Department of Labor

 

The spike in unemployment claims is the proverbial canary in the goldmine. We should expect a swathe of bad economic numbers coming down the pipeline. The head of the St. Louis Fed expects a 30% unemployment rate and a 50% drop in US GDP by summer. More importantly, as the health crisis rises and crests at different times in different parts of the world, the horrifying numbers on GDP growth, unemployment, business closures are not likely to let up in the near term. Multiple countries are in a recession, and eventually, the whole world will fall into a deep recession.

The plunge from prosperity to peril will be as swift as the switch to lockdown protocols in most countries. We cannot even rely on the data we have to reveal the speed and depth of the crisis since this is collected and updated with lags. For instance, the US monthly jobs report for March collects data in the second week of March, failing to capture the massive spike in unemployment claims that appears after March 12.

In the meantime, sources such as restaurant booking website OpenTable can offer some insights into the magnitude of things. The figures below show the recent plummet in diners eating at restaurants in four countries. Observe a sudden stop in the entire restaurant industry by the third week of March.


Annual % change in restaurant diners from end of February to end of March.

Data: OpenTable

 

Combine a black swan event with missing data, and it is not surprising that markets are swinging violently.

Deep freeze

The question is not one of whether we are in a recession – we are. The more pertinent questions are: how long it will last? How deep it will be? Who will be impacted the most? And how swift will the recovery be?

These questions are complicated and even top economists must admit a lack of confidence in their answers. We are not experiencing a standard downturn. Nor is it simply a financial crisis, a currency crisis, a debt crisis, a balance of payment crisis or a supply shock.

We have not seen anything like this since the flu pandemic of 1918. Even there, identifying the effects of the flu is confounded by the first world war that took place at the same time. What we have here is something different. At its heart, we are experiencing a healthcare crisis with various parts of the world succumbing in a staggered fashion.

To slow down this global health crisis (the “flatten the curve” mantra), we have chosen to put the economy into deep freeze temporarily. Production, spending, and incomes will inevitably decline. Decisions to reduce the severity of the epidemic exacerbate the size of the contraction. While the initial decision to reduce labour supply and consumption are voluntary, this will likely be followed by involuntary reductions in both, as businesses are forced to lay off workers or go bankrupt.

Of course, government policies will attempt to mitigate these effects. Some are using traditional monetary and fiscal policies (cutting interest rates, quantitative easing, increasing unemployment insurance, bailouts). Others are trying out non-traditional methods (direct cash transfers, loans to businesses conditional on maintaining unemployment, wage subsidies).

Public health priority

How long the economic impact lasts depends entirely on how long the pandemic lasts. This, in turn, depends on epidemiological variables and health policy choices. But even when the pandemic ends, the resumption of normalcy is likely to be gradual. Countries will persist with a strict containment regime like in China today, and continue to impose travel restrictions to various parts of the world where the disease continues to spread.

The many factors at play in this complex, interlinked crisis that affects both people’s health and the global economy introduces massive uncertainty into anyone hazarding the pace, the depth and the length of the impact. As a result, we should treat any precise estimates (such as “GDP will decline by X%” or “markets have reached their bottom”) with scepticism.

Especially frustrating is the idea that there is a conflict between academic disease modellers and hard-edged economists saying that steps to slow the spread of coronavirus has trade offs. This could not be further from the truth. Among economists there is near unanimity that countries should focus on the healthcare crisis and that tolerating a sharp slowdown in economic activity to arrest the spread of infections is the preferred policy path. In a recent survey carried out by the University of Chicago, respondents universally agreed that you cannot have a healthy economy without healthy people.

The health crisis has naturally created a crisis of confidence. This, in turn, can have damaging long-term effects with continuing uncertainty leading firms and households to postpone investment, production and spending. Restoring confidence requires a singular focus on containing and reversing the spread of COVID-19.

Slowing the rate that people fall ill with COVID-19 is not the end in itself. It is a means to temporarily reduce the pressure on hospitals and give time to identify treatments and a vaccine. In the interim, we must build testing capacity, perform contact tracing, setup the infrastructure for extended quarantines, rapidly expand the production of masks, ventilators and other protection equipment, build and repurpose facilities into hospitals, add intensive care capacity and train, recall and redeploy medical personnel.

All of this is also the way to restore the economy’s health and economic policy must complement it. In the short run, economic policies should mitigate the impact of lockdowns and ensure that the current crisis does not trigger financial, debt or currency crises. It should focus on flattening the recession curve, ensure that the temporary shutdown has only transient effects, and facilitate a quick recovery once the economy is taken out of the deep freeze.

In the meantime, it’s important to also recognise that this is an unprecedented crisis. Everybody has their role to play, but nobody is infallible and uncertainty is inevitable.

Pushan Dutt, Professor of Economics, INSEAD

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


A message to all subscribers to
The Knowledge Exchange information service

We are open for business and continue to provide current awareness and enquiries services to our clients. If you have any questions, please get in touch.

The case for universal basic services

by Hannah Brunton and Scott Faulds

There are longstanding debates around what should be included in the provision of public services, and this issue was central to the discussion at a recent Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) Seminar (series 16: lecture 2), at which Dr. Anna Coote presented her proposal for ‘Universal Basic Services’ (UBS). The need for public services like healthcare and education is widely recognised, but services such as adult social care, housing and transport remain largely privatised. As poverty, inequality and environmental issues become increasingly prevalent, could UBS be what is needed to transform public service provision to tackle such problems?

What are universal basic services?

The basic premise of UBS is the idea that public services should be improved and expanded to sufficiently cover all of life’s everyday essentials, for everyone who needs them, irrespective of their ability to pay. One of the main principles identified by Dr. Coote was the idea that public service provision should be guided by the shared basic needs which are common to all in society, such as food, shelter, housing, transport, information, education and healthcare. By combining existing resources and taking collective responsibility for meeting these needs, Dr. Coote proposes that UBS would be a sustainable system that would also allow future generations to manage their own continually changing needs.

A core aspect of the proposal is the idea of the “social wage” whereby all members of society receive a ‘virtual income’ via collective public services, topped up by income support for those who need it, to ensure that everyone’s income is sufficient and that everyone is able to afford the essentials that they are expected to pay for themselves.

How would UBS work in practice?

The proposal involves expanding the variety of public services offered, as well as improving those which exist already, such as education and healthcare. Dr. Coote argues that public services should be broadened to include childcare, adult social care, transport, housing, and information services, universally available to all, and free at the point of use.

However, as Dr. Coote acknowledges, this is easier said than done. The implementation of UBS would mean a major transformation of public services and would require a great deal of investment in social infrastructure, as well as the establishment of clear entitlements to ensure everyone has an equal right to access the services they need.

In practice, Dr. Coote proposes a bespoke approach for each area of need, based on case studies from a range of European countries. For example, the proposal recommends a universal childcare scheme based on Norway’s childcare system, and a free bus system based on transport schemes in France and Estonia.

Benefits of UBS

While Dr. Coote acknowledges the potential difficulties in implementing a system like UBS, her talk outlined the broad range of potential benefits which such a system could bring about, in terms of equality, efficiency, solidarity and sustainability. In terms of social and economic inequality, Dr. Coote argues that UBS could tackle this by reducing income equalities by 20%. The proposal also argues that efficiency would be improved, as investment in public services would deliver more social and economic value than the current market system does. Furthermore, Dr. Coote argues, taking collective responsibility, combining resources, and sharing risks would help to build solidarity and empathy. Finally, with regard to sustainability, UBS could help to tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and protecting natural resources, while also improving public health and wellbeing and boosting employment.

Universal basic income

Recently, there has been a spate of trials of what is known as universal basic income (UBI), a form of cash payment paid to every citizen regardless of income or employment status. The concepts of UBS and UBI are in some sense relatively similar: both involve providing some form of statutory support to all citizens. However, Dr Coote, argues that the provision of UBS with a sufficient UBI would be fiscally incompatible. Instead, she suggests implementation of UBS in tandem with a generous, guaranteed income protection scheme. This would include:

  • restoring child benefit to 2010 levels in real terms;
  • swapping the tax-free personal allowance for a cash payment for all but the richest;
  • improving social security payments by 5% for all;
  • removing caps and reduceing rates at which benefits are withdrawn.

The combination of this scheme and UBS have been estimated to cost 5.8% of GDP. By comparison, the provision of a sufficient UBI alone would cost between 20% to 30% of GDP. Dr Coote, invokes the work of Luke Martinelli, who concludes: “an affordable UBI would be inadequate, and an adequate UBI would be unaffordable”. In short, Dr Coote, believes that the provision of a sufficient UBI is unaffordable and that the delivery of UBS, whilst not perfect, avoids the ineffective use of huge amounts of public money which could instead be used to improve and expand upon collective public services.

Additionally, Dr Coote, states that even from an ideological standpoint UBS and UBI are incompatible, arguing that UBI is: “an individualistic, monetary intervention that undermines social solidarity and fails to tackle the underlying causes of poverty, unemployment and inequality”.

For example, proponents of UBS argue that providing people in poverty with a UBI to fend for themselves within an inflated housing market is an inefficient use of public money and contend that it would be more effective to provide quality housing. Research conducted by Oxfam has found that the “virtual income” provided by the provision of universal public services helps to reduce income inequality in OECD countries by roughly 20%. Therefore, it could be argued that by deploying UBS, and substantially enlarging the social wage, people will need less disposable income to meet their needs and flourish.

Final thoughts

At its very core, the concept of UBS can be seen as a desire to create more and better collective services, available as a right, rather than by an individual’s ability to pay. Throughout the seminar, Dr Coote was clear in her belief that UBS is not a silver bullet.  Instead it should be viewed as a principled framework that challenges conventional economic thinking and provides a vision of a better future. In short, UBS can be seen as an attempt to reclaim the collective ideal and as a desire to extend the ‘social wage’ to best meet the collective needs of everyone in society.


Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our Research Officers this week.

If you enjoyed this article you may also like to read:

“We’ve updated our privacy policy”: GDPR two years on

by Scott Faulds

Almost two years ago, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force across the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA), creating what many consider to be the most extensive data protection regulation in the world. The introduction of GDPR facilitated the harmonisation of data privacy laws across Europe and provided citizens with greater control over how their data is used. The regulation sets out the rights of data subjects, the duties of data controllers/processors, the transfer of personal data to third countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, and remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights. However, whilst the regulation itself is extensive, questions have been raised regarding the extent to which GDPR has been successful at protecting citizens’ data and privacy.

Breach Notifications and Fines

Critics of GDPR have argued that whilst the regulation has been effective as a breach notification law, it has so far failed to impose impactful fines on companies which have failed to comply with the GDPR. National data protection authorities (such as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK) under the GDPR have the ability to impose fines of up to €20m or up to 4% of an organisation’s total global turnover, whichever is higher. Since the introduction of the GDPR, data protection authorities across the EEA have experienced a “massive increase” in reports of data breaches. However, this has yet to translate into substantive financial penalties. For example, Google has been issued a €50m fine, the highest issued so far* by CNIL, the French data protection authority. CNIL found that Google failed to provide sufficient and transparent information that allowed customers to give informed consent to the processing of personal data when creating a Google account during the set-up process of an Android powered device. This is a serious breach of multiple GDPR articles and CNIL argued that the infringements contravene the principles of transparency and informed consent which are at the heart of the GDPR.

*  The confirmation of record fines issued by ICO to British Airways (£183m) and Marriott International (£99m) has been delayed until 31st March 2020.

However, the fine imposed on Google amounts to approximately 0.04% of their total global turnover, which some have argued is simply too small an amount to act as any real deterrent. Therefore, it could be said that while GDPR has been effective in encouraging companies to be transparent when data misuse occurs, national data protection authorities have yet to make use of their ability to impose large financial penalties to act as a deterrent.

In recent months, the German and Dutch data protection authorities have both created frameworks which set out how they intend to calculate GDPR fines. Analysis of their fining structures indicates that both models will operate based on the severity of GDPR violation. However, both structures allow for the data protection authority to impose the maximum fine if the amount is not deemed fitting. The International Association of Privacy Professionals believes this will result in significantly higher and more frequent fines than those issued previously, and has suggested that it is possible that the European Data Protection Board may consider implementing a harmonized fine model across Europe.

Brussels Effect

The effects of the GDPR can be felt beyond Europe, with companies such as Apple and Microsoft committing to extend GDPR protections to their entire customer base, no matter their location.  Even the COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, admitted that the introduction of GDPR was necessary due to the scale of data collected by technology companies. The ability of the EU to influence the global regulatory environment has been described by some experts as the “Brussels Effect”. They argue that a combination of the size, importance and regulatory power of the EU market is forcing companies around the world to match EU regulations. Additionally, this effect can be seen to be influencing data protection legislation across the world, with governments in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa and California all introducing updated privacy laws based on the GDPR. As a result, it can be said that the introduction of the GDPR has enabled the EU to play a key role in global discussions regarding privacy and how citizens’ data is used worldwide. 

Brexit

Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the GDPR will remain in force until the end of the transition period (31st December 2020), after this point it is the intention of the UK Government to introduce the UK GDPR. However, as the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU, it will require to seek what is known as an “adequacy agreement” with the EU.This allows businesses in the EEA and UK to freely exchange data. The UK government believes that this agreement will be signed during the transition period, as the UK GDPR is not materially different from the EU GDPR. However, it should be noted that the most recent adequacy agreement between the EU and Japan took two years to complete.

Final Thoughts

The introduction of the GDPR almost two years ago has had a variety of impacts on the current discussion surrounding privacy and how best to protect our personal data. Firstly, the GDPR has forced companies to become more transparent when data misuse occurs and gives national data protection authorities the power to scrutinise companies’ approaches to securing personal data. Secondly, the influence of the GDPR has helped to strengthen privacy laws across the world and has forced companies to provide individuals with more control over how their data is used. However, the effectiveness of GDPR is limited due to a lack of common approach regarding fines in relation to GDPR violations. In order to develop fully, it will be important for the European Data Protection Board to provide guidance on how to effectively fine those who breach the GDPR.


If you enjoyed this post, you may also like some of our other posts related to GDPR:

Follow us on Twitter to see what topics are interesting our research team.