Measuring Deprivation in Scotland: Developing a Long-Term Strategy: Final Report
4. Scottish context
We recommend that the Executive: R4.1 - continues to draw on work on deprivation undertaken in the rest of Britain, given the fundamental similarities between Scotland and the rest of Britain in terms of the nature of deprivation, its underlying causes, social perceptions of minimum acceptable standards and the institutional context; R4.2 - continues in its approach of developing measures of deprivation which cover the whole of Scotland. |
One requirement of this project was to explore whether there was evidence that the nature of deprivation was distinct in Scotland or whether there were differences within Scotland which would need to be taken into account in any measures. We examined the geographical, cultural and institutional context is some detail in the Interim Report (Bailey et al, 2003). Here we provide a shorter summary of that discussion and incorporate some feedback from the consultation process.
4.1 Geographical context
There are some differences of physical geography between Scotland and other parts of the UK which may have a bearing on needs. Scotland's colder, wetter and windier climate, particularly on the west coast, is likely to increase the deprivation problems associated with inadequate housing, notably fuel poverty arising from inadequate heating systems and insulation. Although not unique to Scotland, it becomes more important to ensure that these problems are adequately captured. The more important challenges relate to patterns of settlement and differences arising from histories of development. We summarise these as urban/rural and regional dimensions.
4.1.1 Urban and rural dimensions
More than in England, measures of deprivation need to cope with the range of situations in which people live in Scotland - from dense neighbourhoods in large metropolitan areas to small settlements or isolated homes in remote and sparsely populated regions. There is great diversity between these extremes as well and the terms 'urban' and 'rural' do not reflect this adequately. While we continue to use these terms as a convenient shorthand, we need to bear this diversity in mind at all times. Recent evidence shows that, on a wide range of indicators, urban areas as a whole tend to have higher levels of deprivation than rural areas. These studies also show that there is a great deal of diversity within both urban and rural categories and deprivation is not confined to urban areas. In terms of the nature of the problems faced, we argue that the basic dimensions of deprivation are the same across Scotland (Rural Poverty and Inclusion Working Group, 2001). The importance of the urban-rural issue is increased because, in the past, many area-based deprivation indices were biased against rural areas due to the indicators used or due to the focus on area concentrations (Midwinter and Monaghan, 1991; Shucksmith, 1990; Shucksmith et al., 1994, 1996; Countryside Agency, 2003). As the Interim Report and others have argued, many of these criticisms became redundant with the latest indices as these are based on better data and different methodologies.
During the consultation process, it was clear that part of the concern from a rural perspective was that the focus on deprivation was seen as inappropriate. It was argued that many of the most remote or fragile rural areas were suffering problems of economic decline and out-migration. Some people who faced a future of poverty and deprivation if they stayed in these areas had migrated elsewhere in search of employment. The result was that levels of need were not adequately reflected by deprivation measures which focussed on current residents alone. There was a suggestion that deprivation measures should include indicators on out-migration to pick up these problems. While sympathetic to these problems, this change would be inappropriate. Deprivation measures cannot make assumptions about where people might prefer to live or about how their living circumstances might differ if they lived somewhere else.
4.1.2 Regional dimensions
There are important regional contrasts within Scotland which may both shape the nature of deprivation in different locations and have implications for how deprivation is measured. The most notable regional difference is the east-west contrast within the Central Belt which has grown so significantly over the last three decades (Bailey et al, 1999). As a result of the scale and nature of Glasgow's problems, it dominates the composition of national indices. While this gives a valid picture of deprivation nationally, it may reduce the value of national indices for guiding policy in some other parts of the country. Some areas have begun to develop their own indices of deprivation or of related concepts (Edinburgh and the Lothians, Fife, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Highland areas, for example). This approach might become more widespread as individual Community Planning Partnerships take on greater responsibility within their areas for "narrowing the gap" between deprived and other areas (Scottish Executive, 2002a). Our main focus remains on the construction of national measures to provide comparability between areas. By making a much greater level of data on deprivation available at both small area and individual levels, however, we hope that the opportunity for different areas to undertake their own analyses will be increased.
4.2 Cultural context
Deprivation, like poverty, is a relative concept, defined and experienced in relation to social norms. These social norms may differ in the Scottish context in two ways. Firstly, perceptions of need and hence the definition of deprivation may be different to other parts of the UK and secondly, the experience of deprived individuals may be influenced by particularly Scottish cultural and social responses to poverty.
In relation to defining deprivation, there is reasonably firm evidence that there would be very few differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Work for the PSE1999 suggested that Scots would have a slightly less generous definition of "necessities of life" than the English (Pantazis et al., 2000). At the same time, Scots appear more concerned about the problems which arise from deprivation, and keener that action is taken to tackle these. Comparisons between the British and Scottish Social Attitudes surveys suggests that Scots were more likely to consider that benefit levels were too low and caused hardship, and less likely to believe that current benefit levels discouraged individuals from finding employment (Patterson, 2002a). A higher percentage of Scots than English also supported the redistribution of wealth (Patterson, 2002a).
Cultural factors may be implicated in behaviour associated with the risk of deprivation and hence with the nature of deprivation. For example, levels of poverty and deprivation explain much of Scotland's strikingly poor health record but not all of it. Part of the explanation appears to lie in cultural differences and the impacts of these on health-related behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption and poor diet. The consultation process identified a number of other areas where, anecdotally, a particularly Scottish dimension may be present but again little hard evidence.
Importantly for the construction of national measures, there appear to be few differences in the social attitudes to deprivation between the Scottish regions. Perceptions of the degree of income inequality are uniform according to the Scottish Social Attitudes survey, with around 85 percent of respondents thinking the gap between those with high and low incomes is too large. Whilst there is some differences in attitudes towards unemployment benefits (those in West central Scotland more likely to support higher benefit levels), these apparent regional differences are largely explained by differences in average age rather than region per se (Bromley and McCrone, 2002). Looking at social capital, there appears to be no significant difference between the regions in levels of membership of community organisations although people in Highland region seem to exhibit slightly higher levels of trust in others and greater willingness to turn to others in times of need (Bromley and McCrone, 2002).
4.3 Conclusions
Overall this discussion suggests that, for the purposes of measuring deprivation, differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK are limited. Approaches to the measurement of deprivation adopted elsewhere are likely to be useful in the Scottish context. Differences within Scotland should also not be exaggerated. The application of a single measure to the whole country is valid.