Decisions on infrastructure need to be less of a done deal, and more of a proper dialogue. That way, public opinion will become less polarised and levels of local trust improved
Crossrail, HS2, flood defences, airport capacity, broadband upgrades, nuclear power, fracking, housing supply; is infrastructure one of the key themes in contemporary discourse about our country’s future?
Infrastructure rarely features when we poll the public on the most important issues facing the country, and nor would we expect it to; the projects and imperatives listed above are rarely joined-up as part of a narrative about what we need to build and why.
Building this narrative is a pre-occupation of the CBI whose new report draws on Ipsos MORI research. Using survey work and discussions, we sought to understand public views on infrastructure and the development of major projects in their area. These matter because, as the CBI argues, these often complex, difficult decisions are vital to Britain’s future, and are made even harder when they shut out public voices or leave it too late to engage local communities.
On the one hand the public worry about the future, thinking that Britain has insufficient local, affordable housing, that the transport network is struggling to cope, that job creation is important, and local communities need a boost. But, on the other hand, they are more likely to say they are currently satisfied than dissatisfied with national, and especially local infrastructure.
Our research detects a ‘protect’ sentiment, but also a desire for ‘progress’. When we present hypothetical infrastructure projects, if people anticipate negative impact for themselves and their locality we find they tend to take ‘consumerist’ ‘what’s in it for me?’ perspectives. By contrast, those with a weaker emotional attachment to the issues are more willing to take a ‘citizen’ view. Few seem to occupy a middle ground.
Infrastructure development can be seen as disruptive to local communities as well as the character, look and feel of areas. These issues are more compelling than the ‘what if…’ scenarios planners employ, whether over the ‘lights will go out’ warnings or boosts to GDP. This doubly underlines the importance of clarity on the premise behind infrastructure investment and presenting that premise effectively. As the CBI says, 'We cannot expect communities to support projects when they do not know what it means for them.'
Another key issue is trust. ‘Neutral’ technical expertise is favoured over politics both in terms of decision-making and explanation. At the same time, the public would like to see a role for central and, especially, local government in setting strategic priorities. But there is low trust in the current voices championing infrastructure. It is felt that local people ought to have a say in genuine, meaningful ways and that any imperative for speedy decision-making should not compromise this.
Yes, there will be winners and losers, but acceptance of this depends on a better way of ‘doing’ infrastructure; less ‘done deal’, more proper dialogue.
There are ways through this and the CBI’s report cites best practice examples. Above all though, leaving consensus-building to developers, and acting too late, won’t help. Understanding and engaging with public opinion nationally and locally, will.
Ben Marshall is a research director at Ipsos MORI
