Lesley Martin is an independent strategy and research professional, blending roles as consultant, commentator and part-time PhD researcher. She formerly held senior posts in local government, managing strategic development plans, economic strategies, and research programmes. Lesley volunteers in many capacities, contributing in particular as a Council Member for the Cockburn Association, Planning Aid Scotland volunteer, and RSA representative with the Scottish Alliance for People and Places. Lesley is also a senior invigilator for Edinburgh University and visiting lecturer.
The recent Scottish Government consultation on the Infrastructure Levy has prompted thoughts on how infrastructure is, or should be, defined. Much of the debate has been on the problems of funding infrastructure, with little discussion about what the definitions mean, and how they affect the value we place on infrastructure. Instead, the debate often presents infrastructure as a financial burden - whether on the public or private sector - rather than an investment and contribution to the present and future collective benefit of society.
The definitions of infrastructure have been changing in scope and growing in number for some time, resulting in a lack of consistency. There are now definitions of infrastructure that can be economic or social, hard or soft, tangible or intangible. Although ‘infra’ as a prefix means ‘below’ in the sense of underlying, modern definitions cover land uses which are not below, beneath or invisible. For example, the 2019 Planning (Scotland) Act definition of infrastructure covers such ‘above ground’ built assets such as education, health and recreation.
What is clear is that ‘infra-structure’ has become much more diverse since the days when the World Bank in 2008 described it simply as roads, ports, airports, and power. This type of ‘hard infrastructure’ definition is still widely used in engineering where infrastructure also includes utilities, transport and communications systems that frequently involve large scale, long term investments. This was certainly the definition used in my own planning education and I must confess that those lectures virtually sent me to sleep.
The issue of definitions has most recently come to the fore in housing circles, where there is an argument for ‘affordable’, or more accurately social housing, to be defined as social infrastructure. Let us consider this for a moment. Back in 2015 when the Scottish Government began to research this seriously, the ‘Planning for Infrastructure’ report led by Ryden, provided a useful baseline. The report stated that affordable housing “is not in scope as it is not a form of infrastructure that is an enabling requirement for development”. Well, the most recent 2024 Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland includes the Edinburgh Biomes, a seven year plan to restore the Royal Botanic Gardens’ unique plant collection. While a worthwhile project, it is difficult to conceive this as infrastructure which constitutes an “enabling requirement for development”.
In truth, classifications and categorisations form the everyday statistical work of government and they shift constantly. The reasons may be practical but more often they are cultural or political. It is always possible to create further asset classes for infrastructure. Interestingly, the 2019 Planning (Scotland) Act includes just such a provision, allowing Scottish Ministers to modify the definition through regulation. In the context of Scotland’s declared housing emergency, a valid case could be made for social housing to be defined as social infrastructure. It would be as legitimate as most other kinds of physical infrastructure. It is possible that such a move could establish an important principle about the value of housing as constituting much more than an economic asset, instead, a collectively owned, valued asset that belongs to society.
It is surely a debate worth pursuing because the arguments will tell us a lot about the politics of social investment in contemporary Scotland. We might even hope that, to quote Deb Chachra, the author of ‘How Infrastructure Works” (2023), the provision of infrastructure may yet come to be seen as “an act of solidarity with people who aren’t born yet”.
