A few learnings from the SRITC Gathering of 2023 by Magnus Fredricson (31 May 2023)

One of several pleasant experiences during the gathering was a little walk from the community centre in Boat of Garten to the newly built pump track in the nearby forest.

Who built this? Asked I, as I observed the sign with instructions for use and safety regulations. This question, as it is, encapsulates a large difference between Sweden and Scotland. In Sweden the answer would invariably have been: the municipality. Or at least: the municipality paid for it.

In Scotland the third sector plays an entirely different role in society and social enterprise is a thing. Third sector actors take on professionalised roles and are expected to deliver professional services.

The SRITC itself is a social enterprise, run by a PhD candidate with a professional advisory board of which I am fortunate enough to be a part. Still several start-ups with large investments or social enterprises with research directors were a part of the gathering. This signals another societal contract.

The gathering was opened by a speech from the transport minister of the Scottish government. There are structures in place where social enterprises both influence policy and deliver insights as well as produce services.

One might, and rightly so, argue that these roles of the third sector are a must in a society where the public sector is retreating. This, however, would be an overly simplified understanding of the situation.

Public cooperation with third sector goes back a long time in Scotland, and the government has actively supported the emerging of a third sector through different initiatives such as SensScot, Social Enterprise Network Scotland, a social enterprise umbrella organisation which focuses on supporting social entrepreneurs in all walks of life in business, in government and in particular, creating social enterprises.

In fact, one of the participating social enterprises also illustrate the differences in the societal contract: Collaborative Mobility UK. They are a charity dedicated to the social, economic and environmental benefits of shared transport.

Their webpage outlines their mission: We work collaboratively with national, regional, transport and local authorities as well as the private sector to further these social, economic and environmental benefits. We do this via accreditation, research, policy, guidance, engagement and advocacy. The research presented by them is also useful in the Swedish context, where for instance the report on Digital Demand Responsive Transport issued in March 2023 has several recommendations suited also for Sweden.

In Sweden public transportation is run by regional authorities. They typically procure the actual production of transport and all of their resources are located there. Little or no room exist for local collaborations with social enterprises, if they would even exist.

One possible solution in a scarcer geography would be a “village bus” as infrastructure provided by the regional authority instead of a regular bus that serves the village maybe once per day. Driving would be the responsibility of the local community.

These types of solutions are not in place in Sweden, where the public sector in practice monopolise resources and production of mobility services as well as other services, e. g. health care, education and others. (There are private actors within the education sector, some are even co-opted.) Sharing resources and indeed power is not common for the public sector of Sweden.

SRITC, Scottish Rural and Islands Transport Community, addresses transportation in scarcer geographies. There are large similarities between Swedish and Scottish geographies. Scarcity or “un-density” is abundant. In a neoliberal, “market driven”, system for public transportation scarcity of customers will not attract solutions or services.

Bus services in rural areas are deemed “non-profitable” and shut down. Exactly what non-profitable means in a publicly funded operation is not clear. In Sweden the average funding of public transportation amounts to 50% tax and 50% ticket sales.

An economization of public transportation, for instance through procuring the actual services from private, profit driven companies, brings the risk of reducing citizens to customers, and paves the way to understanding a bus line as non-profitable.

Almost all municipalities in western Sweden will cite “accessibility” or public transport as a challenge, particularly in rural – non dense – geographies. Obviously, un-density drives cost for public transport for instance per person-kilometre.

Participants in the gathering also included representatives from national parks and other attractions. Mobility is seen as an integrated part of developing tourism or local communities, this realisation is obvious also in a Swedish context, at least among municipalities and other local actors.

The policy controlling public transportation in west Sweden does not include these perspectives at all, often times creating quite the tension between local and regional levels. It appears, at least from the perspective of a visitor, that dialogue and co-creation between different actors in different geographical scale is more fruitful, and that well-trodden paths for it exists based in the tradition outlined above.

Also, pilot-testing is an abundant modus operandi in Sweden. There is much less talk of that in Scotland. Testing, learning and continuous development are obviously key to enable sustainable mobility in scarcer geographies, but pilot-testing, sandboxing, tends to limit impact of learnings created within regular operations. A mindset based less in pilots and more in continuous testing and learning would probably be more fruitful.

Digitalisation is key, where cell phone coverage is a prerequisite for dynamic mobility. Cell phone coverage is better in Sweden. Several start-ups and more established companies supply different kind of technical platforms with different levels of integration. Standardisation, in a wide sense, is needed but the market is still immature.

Also, business models for whole eco systems of services and platforms need to be developed. Actually, the need is sustainable income models where, in Sweden, regional authorities need to play a part.

Tentative recommendations for the Swedish context would include openness toward innovation and co-creation of solution for accessibility needs in scarcer geographies. These processes, rather than pilot-projects, will need to enable a more flexible use of public resources rather than solely reserving resources for existing structures and solutions.

The market will not produce solutions in scarcer geographies, and no viable business models will be found that facilitates mobility services where customers are fewer. Budget will have to be allocated from public financing to enable solutions for better sustainable accessibility.