Valuing Participation: The case for payments
This blog is a follow-up from the first piece in this series written by, Dawn Brown, Head of Programme at the Scottish Co-Production Network. In it, she explores the arguments for payment and recognition within co-production process, as well as some of the issues and tensions that arise.
The case for payment
Across the Scottish Co-production Network, this is a conversation that comes up again and again. Whether we are working with communities, people with lived and living experience, volunteers, public services or community and voluntary sector organisations, there is a common question: “Should people be paid for their participation?”
Let's start with the strongest argument for payment: quite simply, participation costs people something.
Attending meetings may mean taking time away from employment, family responsibilities, caring roles or education. It may involve travel expenses, childcare costs or the emotional effort involved in discussing difficult experiences. For some people, unpaid participation is simply not possible.
If co-production is only accessible to those who can afford to volunteer, then it risks excluding exactly the voices that need to be heard the most.
Payment can support inclusion. It can enable participation from people who might otherwise be unable to take part because of financial pressures. It can also signal that lived and living experience knowledge is valued on an equal footing with professional expertise. Research and guidance from the Scottish Government emphasise principles including recognising contributions, ensuring people are not left out of pocket and offering transparent choices about compensation for time.
Payment can also play an important role in shifting power dynamics.
Many people with lived and living experience describe feeling that organisations want their stories but not necessarily their expertise. Paying people for their involvement can be a tangible demonstration that their contribution is not being extracted, but respected.
In this sense, payment can be viewed not simply as a financial transaction but as part of creating more equitable, and more balanced relationships.
The value of volunteering
Yet being paid is not the only way that people find meaning in participation.
Across Scotland, countless individuals contribute to community action, local organisations, campaigns and co-production initiatives because they care deeply about making a difference. Their motivation is not primarily financial.
Volunteering has a long and proud tradition within Scottish civic life. It helps build community connections, mutual support and collective action. Many people describe volunteering as a source of friendship, personal growth, confidence and purpose. It is something that brings a richness to their lives, and something they see as inherently valuable. Volunteering is not unpaid because its free, its because it is priceless.
There can also be something powerful about retaining a degree of independence from the systems we are seeking to influence.
When people participate voluntarily, they may feel greater freedom to challenge, pose the difficult questions and speak truth to power. Their role can be understood less as a contracted contributor and more as an independent critical friend.
Some practitioners worry that if participation becomes overly professionalised, there is a risk that the unique qualities of lived and living experience voices could be diluted. People might begin to feel like representatives of organisations rather than community members bringing authentic views, understanding and perspectives.
This does not mean that payment undermines independence. Far from it. But it does remind us that participation is about more than financial reward. It is also about relationships, values and collective purpose.
Navigating tensions and unintended consequences
One of the challenges facing organisations is that payment does not affect everyone equally.
For some people, receiving a payment is straightforward and welcome. For others, particularly those receiving certain welfare benefits, even relatively small payments can create uncertainty or anxiety about how this might affect their circumstances.
Guidance and practical resources have developed significantly in recent years, but concerns remain. Many people understandably worry about impacts on benefit entitlements or administrative complications.
This creates an uncomfortable reality.
An approach intended to promote fairness may inadvertently create new barriers for some people.
As a result, many organisations have concluded that flexibility matters. Rather than imposing a single model, they offer participants choices and access to information so people can make informed decisions that work for their own circumstances. The previously quoted Scottish Government guidance similarly highlights participant choice as a key principle.
The lesson here is important: fairness is not always about treating everyone identically. Sometimes it means creating different pathways so that people can participate and be rewarded in ways that suit them.
Want to learn more? View our the recording of our webinar on payments and recognition.
