Tag Archives: economic growth

Digitalisation and decarbonisation: a 2-D approach to building back greener

Posted on by

Across the world, two disruptive and powerful trends are taking hold: digitalisation and decarbonisation. At times, it seems as if these two forces are acting against each other, with digital technologies accelerating economic growth, but also consuming huge quantities of energy and emitting high amounts of CO2.

But it’s becoming clear that rather than competing, digitalisation and decarbonisation can work together in ways that achieve sustainable economic growth without destroying our home planet.

The net zero imperative

We’re now familiar with the evidence that global warming will do irreparable damage to the world unless we can reduce the greenhouse gases that cause it. Getting to net zero means achieving the right balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere.

The challenge is one not just for national governments. Businesses are facing growing regulatory, reputational and market-driven pressures to transform their business models and embrace the shift to a low-carbon, sustainable future. It’s here that digitalisation can support us on the path to net zero.

The digital possibilities

In 2020, a Green Alliance study reported that  digital technologies could have significant positive environmental impacts, including: accelerating the deployment of clean technologies and helping businesses to stop wasting energy and resources.

But the report also found that many UK businesses are still not making use of digital solutions: only 42% of UK businesses have purchased cloud computing services, compared to 65% in Finland and 56% in Denmark. The authors highlighted a number of factors explaining slower digital adoption, including lack of digital skills, concerns about cybersecurity and privacy, and underinvestment in infrastructure.

AI as an ally in the battle against climate change

Another report, published last year by PwC and Microsoft explored the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in tackling the climate crisis. Focusing on agriculture, water, energy and transport, the report revealed numerous ways in which AI can have positive environmental and economic impacts.

  • In agriculture, AI can better monitor environmental conditions and crop yields;
  • AI-driven monitoring tools can track domestic and industrial water use, and enable suppliers to pre-empt water demand, reducing both wastage and shortages;
  • AI’s deep learning, predictive capabilities can help manage the supply and demand of renewable energy.

The report stressed that AI cannot act on its own, but will rely on multiple complementary technologies working together, including robotics, the internet of things, electric vehicles and more.

While the challenges of putting AI to work in tackling the climate crisis are great, the prizes of doing so are equally significant. The PwC/Microsoft report estimated that across the four sectors studied AI could:

  • contribute up to $5.2 trillion to the global economy in 2030;
  • reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4.0% in 2030, (an amount equivalent to the 2030 annual emissions of Australia, Canada and Japan combined);
  • create up to 38.2 million net new jobs across the global economy.

Put simply, AI can enable our future systems to be more productive for the economy and for nature.

The downsides of digitalisation

As we’ve previously reported, the infrastructure that supports the digital world comes with significant energy costs and environmental impacts. From internet browsing, video and audio streaming, as well as manufacturing, shipping, and powering digital devices, digital has its own substantial carbon footprint.

The PwC/Microsoft report acknowledges that there will be trade-offs and challenges:

“For example, AI with its focus on efficiency through automation might potentially lead to ‘over exploitation’ of natural resources if not carefully guided and managed. AI, especially deep learning and quantum deep learning, could also lead to increased demand for energy, which could be counter-productive for sustainability goals, unless that energy is renewable and that electricity generation is developed hand-in-hand with application deployment.”

In addition, there is a need to ensure that all parts of the world are able to capture the benefits of digital technologies – not just the more advanced economies.

Final thoughts

Decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions is one of the biggest challenges of our lifetime. Digital technologies have enormous potential not only to achieve decarbonisation, but to improve economic performance.

As both the Green Alliance and PwC/Microsoft reports have underlined, this can be achieved by taking a joined-up approach to digitalisation and green growth. This means thinking beyond the technology to consider issues such as investing in education and training to develop the skills needed to support the growth of clean industries and digitalisation, addressing privacy concerns and supporting businesses in their drive to shrink their carbon footprints.

As we emerge from a pandemic which has inflicted great damage to economies, but which has also demonstrated the possibilities of changing longstanding habits, digitalisation is presenting us with opportunities to ensure that building back greener is more than just a slogan.

Further reading: more on climate change and technology from The Knowledge Exchange blog:

Follow us on Twitter to find out what topic areas are interesting our research team.

Supporting universities could be key to economic and social recovery

Posted on by
Image by Ian Dick via Creative Commons

“Support for universities means support for businesses and jobs, for key workers, and for levelling up the UK’s towns and regions.” (Universities UK)

Universities have long been positively associated with economic growth, not only for the regional areas in which they are situated but also for neighbouring regions as a result of spillover effects. The total income of the UK university sector has been estimated at around £40 billion per year – 1.8% of national income.

Many universities are important anchors in their local areas, supporting community activity in various ways and working in collaboration with smaller businesses. And they have played a vital role in the response to the current pandemic through medical research, sharing of resources and community wellbeing efforts. 

With widespread agreement over ‘building back better’ and ‘levelling up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom’, it is no surprise there have been calls to ensure investment in this sector is a central priority. In forecasting the potential impact of UK universities over the next five years, recent research from Universities UK suggests that a well-supported university sector could be key to the economic and social recovery from the pandemic.

Supporting people

The Universities UK report outlines the ways in which universities support people, including by providing a pipeline of key workers and enabling upskilling for new jobs. It is projected that by May 2026, more than 191,000 nurses, 84,000 medical specialists and 188,000 teachers will graduate from UK universities. And it is suggested that these are likely to be underestimates. If these forecasts are accurate, the potential for universities to help address the skills gaps and shortages that the UK faces is clear, particularly as nursing and teaching have featured on the hard-to-fill and skills shortage vacancies lists.

It is also projected that demand for higher level skills will continue rising into the late 2020s. In the shorter term, 79% of employers with more than 25 staff anticipate a need for upskilling in the next 12 months, rising to 84% for firms with over 100 staff. No region sees the need for upskilling fall below 60%. In addition to educating students, universities are responding to this need with training and upskilling programmes tailored to employers and the community. Forecasts for each of the UK nations include:

  • universities in Northern Ireland will deliver the equivalent of 410 years of professional development training and education courses to businesses and charities in the next five years (and 90 years’ worth in the next 12 months)
  • Scottish universities will provide 3,490 years of training by May 2026 (over 600 years’ worth in the next year)
  • Welsh universities will deliver the equivalent of nearly 4,800 years of upskilling in the next five years (over 880 years’ worth in the next 12 months)
  • universities in England will provide the equivalent of over 549 centuries (54,936 years) of training by May 2026, and 10,580 years’ worth in the next year alone

As has been argued, “part of the effect of universities on growth is mediated through an increased supply of human capital and greater innovation”. 

Local economic impact

The local economic impact of universities is widely recognised. Universities have consistently attracted funding for local regeneration projects with significant economic and social impacts and the report forecasts that these will have a value of over £2.5 billion in local places across the UK over the next five years.

It is suggested that many of these projects will also attract additional funding from universities and businesses, resulting in even greater local impact.

Universities also have a direct impact on their local economies as large employers. It is estimated that 1.27% of all people in employment in the UK work for a university. Other recent analysis suggests that universities typically support up to one additional job in the immediate local economy for every person they directly employ.

The impact of universities on local procurement is also emphasised, highlighting the example of the Leeds Anchors Network, which is looking at opportunities to direct spending locally.  The report suggests that if anchor institutions in Leeds shift 10% of their total spending to suppliers in the region this could be worth up to £196 million each year.

Collaboration and contributing to research

The report also considers the role of universities in partnering with business, including providing advice/training and enabling cutting edge research and innovation.

It is forecast that UK universities will be commissioned to provide over £11.6 billion of support and services to small enterprises, businesses and not-for-profits over the next five years, ranging from specialist advice, access to the latest facilities and equipment to develop innovative products, and conducting bespoke research projects. It is also expected that universities will attract national and international public funds to spend on collaborative research with businesses and non-academic organisations, estimated to be worth £21.7 billion over the next five years.

The report highlights that this research leads to impact in priority sectors. In the East Midlands, for example, over a third of competitive funding received by research organisations since 2014 was for clean growth and infrastructure projects with businesses, a higher proportion than any other region. In Yorkshire 85% of funding has been for manufacturing, materials and mobility projects, and 53% of funding in London has been in the area of ageing, health and nutrition.

Universities have also been shown to be effective in commercialising their research via spinouts, an area that has a great deal of potential to contribute to economic growth.

Despite all universities conducting cutting-edge research, there are regional disparities in research and innovation investment. And there has been historic underfunding in some regions which has led to inequalities in economic performance across the UK, putting the levelling up agenda at risk. The report therefore argues that “research and innovation policy needs to be designed alongside, and be closely aligned to, local economic development policy.”

Of course, the higher education sector hasn’t been immune to recent financial cuts and the expected losses for the sector are “highly uncertain” as highlighted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

And the recent announcement of the 50% cut to university arts funding will come as a big blow to the already suffering creative industries sector. The decision, made in a bid to redirect spending to subjects considered a ‘strategic priority’ by the government such as medicine and STEM, is a concern if it is to have a detrimental impact on the arts industry talent pipeline.

Final thoughts

Depending on the losses the university sector experiences, it may be that the five year forecasts presented in the Universities UK report do not come to fruition.

However, as the intention of the government is to ‘level up’ and create a ‘place strategy’, surely universities have to play a central role given their huge economic and social potential. And that means investment, not cuts. As the Universities UK report highlights:

“World-class innovation and research assets need support. Training highly skilled people requires investment. Ensuring the benefits of both of these are felt equally around the UK will depend on robust policy and funding decisions.”

RESEARCHconnect is the Idox group’s specialist research funding database providing information on thousands of funding opportunities dedicated to the UK research community. It supports universities, research institutions and research-intensive companies across Europe in identifying and disseminating R&D funding. In the current economic climate, there is increasing pressure to exploit alternative funding sources and RESEARCHconnect ensures that global funding opportunities will not be missed. 

Follow us on Twitter to find out what topic areas are interesting our research team.

Build back better: is now the time for Green New Deals? – Part 2

Posted on by

A window of opportunity

In policymaking, there is a concept known as the “Overton Window”, which describes the range of policies that politicians can propose without being considered too extreme by the population at large. This window of opportunity can be shifted and can allow for policies that in the past may have been considered unthinkable and radical to become mainstream and even sensible.

The impact of Covid-19 and the public health measures that have been required to suppress the virus, have undoubtedly resulted in a shift in the “Overton Window”. Policy interventions, such as the Job Retention Scheme and national lockdown, which involved massive amounts of government spending and restrictions to every aspect of our day-to-day lives, suddenly became normal and were largely approved of by the public.

In these circumstances, the concept of the Green New Deal, a policy package which involves large amounts of government spending, designed to create green jobs, develop green infrastructure and modernise the economy, may no longer be such an unfeasible idea.

Build back better: a green recovery

The economic impact of Covid-19 is expected to result in a 5.2% contraction of global GDP, amounting to the deepest global depression since 1945. In order to recover from this contraction, governments are formulating unprecedentedly large economic stimulus packages, designed to mitigate the economic and social damage created by the pandemic. Already there are numerous examples of governments utilising aspects of the Green New Deal within their economic recovery plans.

European Union

Next Generation EU – A European Green Deal

Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, the European Commission was already working on creating a European Green Deal, which would support the EU transition to climate neutrality by 2050. After the onset of the pandemic, the European Commission moved to position the Green Deal as a key pillar of the EU’s €750 billion recovery package, known as Next Generation EU. 25% of the recovery package has been dedicated to funding climate action, whilst the entire package features a commitment that any money spent as part of the EU’s economic recovery must “do no harm” to the EU’s climate neutrality goal. The recovery package includes policies that are similar in nature to other Green Deals, including:

  • a €40 billion ‘Just Transition Fund’, to alleviate the socio-economic impacts of the green transition and diversify economic activity;
  • a €91 billion a year fund to improve home energy efficiency and develop low carbon heating;
  • the introduction of an EU-wide border tax on carbon-intensive industrial imports with the potential to raise €14 billion.

French Government

France Relaunch

The French government’s recently announced €100 billion stimulus package, includes a €30 billion package of measures designed to aid France’s transition to carbon neutrality. The measures set out within the package incorporate core elements from Green New Deals, such as developing cleaner forms of transport and improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The package includes the following green measures:

  • a €11 billion investment in developing and encouraging the use of green transport methods, nearly €5 billion of which will be used to upgrade rail lines to encourage freight traffic from road to rail;
  • a €6 billion investment to help improve the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings;
  • A €2 billion investment to help develop the hydrogen sector.

Scottish Government

Protecting Scotland, Renewing Scotland

Within this year’s Scottish Government Programme, it is evident from the first page that it views the need for economic recovery as an opportunity to create a  “fairer, greener and wealthier country”. The programme explicitly describes the measures contained as “the next tranche of our Green New Deal” and borrows extensively from existing Green New Deals, with policies including:

  • a £100 million green Job Creation Fund;
  • a £1.6 billion investment to decarbonise the heating of homes and other buildings;
  • a £62 million Energy Transition Fund to support businesses in the oil, gas and energy sectors over the next five years to grow and diversify;
  • capitalisation of the Scottish National Investment Bank with £2 billion over ten years, with a primary mission to support the transition to net zero emissions.

UK Government

A Plan for Jobs

A key element of the UK Government’s plans to support and develop the labour market is the creation of green jobs, through investment in infrastructure, decarbonisation and maintenance projects. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a principle which is at the core of the Green New Deal. The Plan for Jobs includes similar proposals, such as:

  • a £2 billion Green Homes Grant scheme that will provide homeowners and landlords with vouchers to spend on improving the energy efficiency of homes across the UK;
  • a £1 billion Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme that will offer grants to public sector bodies, including schools and hospitals, to fund both energy efficiency and low carbon heat upgrades;
  • a £40 million Green Jobs Challenge Fund for environmental charities and public authorities to create and protect 5,000 jobs in England.

Final thoughts

The concept of the Green New Deal is one that appears to evolve and shift as time goes on. This is unfortunately to be expected as time runs out for governments to take meaningful action to avert rising global temperatures. The transition to carbon neutrality is one that will undoubtedly result in massive changes to almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, and therefore it is not surprising that the journey to reach this point may require bold and unprecedented action.

However, prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, it would have been unimaginable to consider the levels of spending and intervention that governments would be required to take in order to implement a Green New Deal. The shift to carbon neutrality involves a complete reimagining of the economy and requires a great deal of public support, in particular when the energy transition may threaten the jobs of those who work in carbon-intensive industries.

In a post-Covid era, the concept of governments spending huge sums of money and making unprecedented interventions is now our everyday reality. The economic consequences of the pandemic will require an extraordinary response to ensure that its legacy is not one of increasing levels of unemployment, inequality and stagnation. In this new world, the ambition and wide-ranging nature of the Green New Deal may no longer be seen as unfeasible. In fact, as can be seen in the UK and Europe, governments are already looking to implement various elements of the Green New Deal as part of their economic recovery packages. Perhaps the Green New Deal is about to have its time.

Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Part one of this blog post was published on Monday 14 September.

Read some of our other blogs on climate change and the impacts of Covid-19:

Build back better: is now the time for Green New Deals? – Part 1

Posted on by

From the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement to the pressure placed on governments by worldwide school strikes, the issue of climate change and its effects on the world around us has increasingly risen to the top of the political agenda. Across the world, governments have begun to take various forms of action in an attempt to prevent further rises in global temperatures.

In particular, the concept of a package of measures designed to address climate change and economic inequality, known as the Green New Deal, has gained particular prominence in the past few years.

This two-part blog looks at the concept of the Green New Deal, how it has influenced global policy and its relevance as a means of economic recovery in a post-Covid world.

What is the Green New Deal?

The original concept of a Green New Deal was proposed in a report published by the New Economics Foundation in 2008. The report set out a range of policy proposals that would allow the UK to recover from the global financial crisis, whilst tackling the threat posed by climate change. The scale and ambition of the Green New Deal was largely inspired by the wide-ranging New Deal package of reforms and investment carried out by President Roosevelt, that enabled the United States to recover from the Great Depression.

In a similar vein, the report made recommendations that addressed a wide range of policy areas,  these included:

  • a £50 billion per year programme to create a low-carbon energy system that will involve making “every building a power station” by maximising energy efficiency and renewable energy generation;
  • creating and training a “carbon army” of workers to provide the human resources required for a vast environmental restructuring programme;
  • re-regulating the domestic financial system to ensure that the creation of money at low rates of interest is consistent with democratic aims, financial stability, social justice and environmental sustainability;
  • minimising corporate tax evasion by clamping down on tax havens and corporate financial reporting.

Green New Deal: 2.0

Over time the Green New Deal has evolved and has spread internationally. Following the 2018 US Elections, the concept gained increasing prominence in the United States. Advanced by newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, the Green New Deal set out a vision for the United States to transition to become carbon neutral in just ten years.

In a similar vein to the ambition of both the New Deal and the original Green New Deal, the package proposed included a variety of measures that crossed a range of policy areas, including:

  • meeting 100% of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources;
  • upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
  • providing all people of the United States with high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature;
  • guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.

Criticism of Green New Deals

The concept of the Green New Deal is often criticised for being too expensive to be implemented. Opponents of the US Green New Deal believe the timeline for the United States to become carbon neutral in just ten years is unrealistic, and the estimated cost of  $12.3 trillion is too high. Critics also argue that the proposals are too vague and often fail to consider the seismic changes the measures may have on wider society, particularly for those who work in industries directly impacted by the energy transition.

In short, critics of a Green New Deal believe that as a package it is simply too large, both in ambition and price, to be implemented successfully. The level of government action required to implement such wide-scale reform would be unprecedented in peacetime and could potentially require citizens to make substantial changes to the way they live their lives. Until wider society is willing to accept a substantial increase in government spending and changes to their way of life, it is unlikely that a Green New Deal will be able to be effectively implemented.

Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Part two of this blog post is available now.

Read some of our other blogs on climate change and the impacts of Covid-19:

Shining a spotlight on Evaluations Online: Scotland’s essential economic development resource

Posted on by

Image: Marcus Winkler (via Unsplash CC)

The UK is currently at the beginning of what is expected to be the deepest recession in living memory. From a policy point of view, governments around the world are facing the daunting task of navigating a route through uncharted territory. As the recently launched cross-institutional Economics Observatory noted last month, “sound and non-partisan advice is needed to inform decision-makers across all parts of society, about the choices they face in dealing with the crisis and the recovery”.

Key role of economic development and sustainability in the Covid-19 recovery

As statistical analysis suggests that Scotland’s GDP fell 18.9% during the month of April, and that in May output remains 22.1% below the level in February, the need for a recovery approach that is based on empowering regions, cities and local communities is clear.

The independent Advisory Group established by the Scottish Government to advise on Scotland’s economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, published its report at the end of June. This identified interventions to support Scotland’s economic recovery within the context of the strategic goal of shifting to a greener, fairer and more inclusive economy with wellbeing at its heart.

New economic development initiatives and programmes in response to the pandemic have already been launched in Scotland. Some are focusing on helping specific sectors such as tourism and the creative industries. There is also a recognition that it is important during the recovery to build on current strengths, such as inward investment and low-carbon technologies.

What works in economic development

Here at the Knowledge Exchange, we’re committed to supporting the use of evidence to inform policy development and practice. So in the light of the current importance of economic development, we thought we’d highlight a useful resource which makes available the results of evaluation work and research in order to enhance decision-making and investment in the future.

Evaluations Online is a public portal providing access to a collection of evaluation and economic development research reports commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s main economic development agency.

Ensuring that public investment generates economic and social benefits, and long-term inclusive growth for Scotland is core to Scottish Enterprise’s remit. Making evaluation and research reports publicly available supports this aim, as well as ensuring transparency.

Established for over a decade, the site now contains over 750 research and evaluation reports dealing with different aspects of economic development activity, such as business support, investment, sector growth and improving skills. All of the reports are publicly accessible and free to access.

Learning lessons from previous programmes

Developing the economic response to Covid-19 is happening at a much faster pace than usual policy-making cycles. It is important, though, that spending and investment is focused on areas that will have most impact, and will also contribute to the overall goals of supporting jobs, protecting and progressing education and skills, and tackling inequality. Considering lessons from previous interventions when commissioning new projects or allocating funding, is one way to address effectiveness.

It’s worth repeating that repositories of evidence can help bring about better policy in a number of ways:

  • improving accountability by making it easier for people to scrutinise the activities and spending of public sector organisations;
  • improving the visibility and therefore the impact of evidence;
  • helping identify gaps in evidence by making it easier to compare research findings; and
  • increasing our understanding of what works (‘good practice’), not only in the activities covered, but also in evaluation and research methods.

Evaluations Online offers resources in key areas such as entrepreneurship, regeneration, social enterprise, economic inclusion, skills development, financing, inward investment and commercialisation, as well as by sector. In recent years, questions about inclusive growth and generating social value have also become more important policy issues.

Some of the most popular recent reports added to the site have focused on:

It’s clear that there are huge sectoral and regional challenges within the economy which will need faced immediately and in the longer term, as a result of Covid-19. Business practices have changed, as have all our lives. But we believe that the use of evidence and research will be fundamental in successful recovery and the transition towards a greener, net-zero and wellbeing economy.

The Knowledge Exchange work with Scottish Enterprise to manage the Evaluations Online portal.

Evaluations Online is a publicly accessible collection of evaluation and research reports from Scottish Enterprise. The reports cover all aspects of Scottish Enterprise’s economic development activities and are available for download at no cost.

Shared Prosperity Fund – greater productivity and inclusivity for Scottish cities?

Posted on by

new bridge glasgow

There are many questions surrounding the UK’s departure from the European Union, not least on the future of funding.

In Scotland’s regions and cities, EU Structural Funds have provided significant additional funding to support economic development for many years. The current structural funds programme is worth about €10.7 billion to the United Kingdom and up to €872 million to Scotland across the seven-year budget period which ends in 2020. The Funds were originally created to help rebalance regional social and economic disparities. With regional inequality a dominant feature of the current economic landscape, and the potential of Brexit to further exacerbate this inequality, continued investment to address this is vital.

The UK Government has made no commitment to continue with the EU Structural Fund approach following exit from the EU and has instead proposed to introduce a domestic successor arrangement – the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). The objective of the SPF is to “tackle inequalities between communities by raising productivity, especially in those parts of our country whose economies are furthest behind.” This objective is widely welcomed. However, as yet there has been no formal consultation on the new Fund and no detail on how it will operate.

Nevertheless, it had been suggested in recent research from the Core Cities Group on Scottish cities that despite the significant contribution from Structural Funds over the years, the proposed SPF could be an opportunity for greater productivity and inclusivity.

Success of EU Structural Funding

The two major EU Structural Funds utilised in Scotland are the European Social Fund (ESF), focusing on skills and jobs, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which focuses on correcting regional imbalances.

Over £134m per annum is being invested in economic development in Scotland through these funds over the current programming period, which is supported by a significant amount of match funding, largely from the public sector. According to the Scottish Government, the total funding will be around €1.9 billion.

The Scottish Cities – the collaboration of Scotland’s seven cities (Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness Perth, and Stirling) – and city regions have already successfully invested in each of the four Scottish Economic Strategy priorities (innovation, investment, inclusive growth and internationalisation) and the UK Industrial Strategy’s five foundations of productivity (ideas, people, infrastructure, business environment and place).

Some examples of projects include:

Research suggests that the ending of such funding poses a risk to organisations and the positive economic impact gained, as illustrated by reductions in funding in other areas of the UK.

Limitations

Despite the successes that have been achieved through the use of Structural Funds, the approach is not without its limitations. As argued by the Core Cities report, the approach to managing, overseeing and using the funding has become more bureaucratic and cumbersome. Particular issues highlighted include:

  • increasing centralisation of funding and decision-making;
  • the requirement to provide match-funding at an individual project level becoming increasingly problematic due to public sector budget cuts;
  • monitoring, compliance and audit requirements have become increasingly onerous;
  • in the current programme period, the role of the Managing Authority has become more transactional, with little engagement at the project development stage;
  • eligibility rules restrict what can be funded, with some important elements of economic development no longer able to be supported e.g. new commercial premises, transport infrastructure, which can limit the benefits from other Structural Fund investment (such as business growth and employment creation on strategic sites);
  • the system does not encourage innovation, with high levels of risk aversion amongst programme managers, and a high degree of risk for project sponsors if project delivery does not proceed as planned – a particular issue for projects working with the most disadvantaged groups and those with complex needs.

The report argues that these factors have had the effect of limiting the achievements of the Funds, such as preventing some organisations from applying for funding, which in turn has made others wary about applying. This has led to projects being designed to meet the funding criteria rather than maximising benefits, resulting in too much time and effort on administrative activities rather than those which will have an impact on the economy.

As such, it is suggested that the introduction of the SPF affords an opportunity to change this.

Opportunity for change

According to the report, there is an opportunity to move away from the limitations of the Structural Fund programme approach to more effective arrangements that will increase productivity and contribute to a more inclusive economy. There is scope to increase the funding available through the SPF, reduce bureaucracy and become more responsive to local need.

It is suggested that there is potential for SPF investment in the Scottish Cities to deliver an economic dividend of up to £9bn as productivity increases, producing higher wages at all levels in the workforce, and contributing to a more inclusive economy overall.

Given that Scotland’s performance on some of the key economic indicators is likely to be taken into account when allocating SPF – GVA per job and per hour worked, employment rate, deprivation levels – the report also contends that there is a case for a greater share of the SPF for Scottish Cities. It argues that significant SPF investment in these areas “…will increase competitiveness and tackle inequality, as set out in Scotland’s Economic Strategy, as well as contributing towards the objectives of the UK’s Industrial Strategy, raising productivity and reducing inequalities between communities”.

The report warns that “Scotland will not make significant progress towards a more inclusive economy and society without addressing the deprivation challenges in the Scottish Cities.”

It is recommended that:

  • the SPF should use a transparent, needs-based allocation system;
  • the SPF budget should not be determined by previous levels of Structural Funds, and should be significantly increased; and
  • the Scottish Cities must be closely involved in the design of the SPF.

Final thoughts

There appears to be wide consensus for providing a replacement for EU Structural funding. Most organisations that have commented on the proposed SPF also agree that the level of funding should at least be maintained at its current level.

The concerns in Scotland, and indeed the other devolved legislatures, is the impact the SPF might have in devolved decision making powers currently exercised under EU Structural Funding.

The Scottish Cities have made clear their views on the proposed SPF and the Scottish Government has also launched its own consultation on how the Fund might work for Scotland.

Only time will tell whether the UK Government will take these comments on board, and indeed whether the opportunity for change will be realised at all.

Follow us on Twitter to see what topics are interesting our research team.

How well is your economy? Moving beyond GDP as an indicator of success

Posted on by

by Scott Faulds

Since the early 20th century, the predominant method of evaluating the success of a country has been through the metric of Gross Domestic Production (GDP). This measurement is based upon the assumption that economic growth is the key indicator of a successful country.

In recent years, this assumption has been challenged, with politicians and economists, arguing that the focus on GDP has led to the development of policy which values economic growth at the expense of the wellbeing of society.

Following the 2018 OECD World Forum, Scotland, Iceland and New Zealand, have formed a group known as the Wellbeing Economy Governments, to share best practice of how to build an economic strategy that will foster societal wellbeing.  Additionally, organisations such as the OECD, European Commission and United Nations, are all conducting research into the development of policy beyond GDP. Therefore, it is clear that the previously held consensus surrounding the use of GDP has begun to break down, with countries across the world searching for different ways to evaluate the success of policy.

“We must forge ahead with progressive economic policies that defy common stereotypes about costs and benefits and keep on promoting gender equality as part of a forward-looking social justice agenda“

Katrín Jakobsdóttir
Prime Minister of Iceland

 

What’s wrong with GDP?

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), GDP is the measurement of the monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country during a given period. However, it should be noted that this measure excludes unpaid work and the economic activity of the black market. Simon Kutzents, the modern-day creator of GDP, argued that whilst GDP was effective as a measure of productivity, it should have never been used as an indicator of the welfare of a nation.

Critics of GDP contend that the measure is overly simplistic, due to its interpretation of a successful country as one which is experiencing economic growth, arguing that some countries with growing economies have many social problems. For example, in China GDP grew by 6.6% last year whilst levels of inequality rose faster than in other countries, and society faces a great deal of political oppression. Therefore, it can be said that GDP does not provide a true picture of the success of a country, as it fails to consider societal problems, such as inequality and political freedom.  

The wellbeing approach

As a result of growing criticism of the use of GDP, several countries have started to look at alternative approaches of measuring success which considers factors beyond economic growth. This has led to international interest around the concept of wellbeing, a desire to create policy to improve the wellness of society.

This can manifest in a variety of different forms, from Scotland’s National Performance Framework to New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget –  both policies designed to help improve the health of society rather than solely increasing economic growth.

However, this should not be interpreted as a movement away from encouraging businesses to grow; rather the Wellbeing Economy Governments believe that by improving the wellbeing of society they will indirectly stimulate sustainable economic growth.

“We need to address the societal well-being of our nation, not just the economic well-being“

Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister of New Zealand

As a result of creating a budget justified by improvements in societal wellbeing, New Zealand has invested record levels of funding into supporting the mental wellbeing of all citizens, with a special focus on under 24s. Additionally, the budget prioritises measures to reduce child poverty, reduce inequality for Māori and Pacific Islanders and enable a just transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy. New Zealand believes that by tackling these inequalities, economic growth can be stimulated in ways that benefit all New Zealanders, where improvements in mental health alone could lead to an increase in GDP of 5%.

Therefore, whilst GDP isn’t the main priority of policy making under the wellbeing approach, it is possible for economic growth to occur as a result of implementing policy designed to improve the wellbeing of society. After all, according to the World Health Organisation, a healthier and happier society is a more productive society.

How well is well?

It is evident that the use of GDP as a measure of a country’s success has faced a great deal of criticism in recent years. However, some economists are not ready to give up on GDP quite yet. They argue that whilst GDP is not a perfect representation of a country’s success, neither is the wellbeing approach as it can be incredibly difficult to quantify societal wellness.

For example, if we compare one citizen who is in poor health and lives in an area experiencing low-levels of crime with another citizen who is healthy and lives in an area with high-levels of crime, how can we quantify which citizen has the better level of wellbeing?

In short, critics of the wellbeing approach argue that whilst it is vital that society’s wellbeing is considered during the policy-making process, basing policy solely around wellbeing is ineffective and would be incredibly difficult to measure, due to the personal nature of what constitutes wellbeing.

“Growth in GDP should not be pursued at any or all cost … the objective of economic policy should be collective well-being: how happy and healthy a population is, not just how wealthy a population is.”

Nicola Sturgeon
First Minister of Scotland

Final Thoughts

In summary, whilst there is a great deal of international interest in the possibility of a movement away from GDP, no consensus has yet formed as to whether the wellbeing approach is the way forward. With all new forms of policy, other countries often wait to see if early adopters succeed before following their lead. Perhaps it will be left up to smaller countries to prove that an economic policy focused on wellbeing can be successful.

Until then expect to see a great deal of interest in New Zealand’s implementation of the Wellbeing Budget and the results of the second meeting of the Wellbeing Economy Governments in Iceland this autumn.

The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. 

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Focus on: Evaluations Online

Posted on by

 

Evaluations Online is a public portal providing access to a collection of evaluation and economic development research reports commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s main economic development agency.

Ensuring that public investment generates economic and social benefits, and long-term inclusive growth for Scotland is core to Scottish Enterprise’s remit. Making evaluation and research reports publicly available, supports this aim as well as ensuring transparency.

Some of the most popular recent reports added to the site have focused on:

Working in partnership

Since 2007, Idox has been working with Scottish Enterprise to deliver Evaluations Online using a publishing platform designed specifically to deal with research material. Users can easily navigate to and assess the relevance of material thanks to specially-written abstracts and structured search functions based on a bespoke classification and record structure.

The site now contains over 600 evaluation and research reports commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, dealing with different aspects of economic development activity such as business support, investment, sector growth and improving skills. All of the reports are publicly accessible and free to access.

Since the site launched we have continued to refresh and improve the site, ensuring it better meets the needs of key user groups, including economic development policy-makers and practitioners across Scotland. In the last quarter of 2016, the reports hosted on the site were accessed over 30,000 times.

The importance of evaluation

We’ve highlighted the importance of evidence and evaluation and assessment of information quality on the blog several times before. It’s worth repeating that repositories of evidence can help bring about better policy in a number of ways:

  • improving accountability by making it easier for people to scrutinise the activities and spending of public sector organisations – this helps organisations meet Freedom of Information responsibilities;
  • improving the visibility and therefore the impact of evidence;
  • helping identify gaps in evidence by making it easier to compare research findings; and
  • increasing our understanding of what works (‘good practice’), not only in the activities covered, but also in evaluation and research methods.

We’re proud to support Scottish Enterprise in the dissemination of their evaluation and research output, through a portal which they believe increases the return on these activities.

You can find out more about the projects The Knowledge Exchange team has been involved in, and the consultancy services we offer, here.

Planning for the digital economy

Posted on by

The digital tech sector is the UK’s fastest growing sector.    Recent statistics show that it is growing as much as 50% faster than the wider economy.  In London alone, a new tech business starts up every hour.  Beyond London, digital tech clusters across the country are driving the economic resurgence of many cities and city regions.

The rapid growth of the sector means that its spatial footprint has become increasingly evident in towns and cities across the UK.  In May, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) published guidance on how town planning can respond to and guide the future development of the digital economy.  It makes recommendations for planners in two areas:

  • how to encourage the growth of the tech sector in their local area; and
  • how to make best use of the opportunities provided by the tech sector for the planning system

What is the tech sector?

The digital tech sector is increasingly diverse, and there is no straightforward definition.  The 2016 Tech Nation report identified 16 different sectors, some of which include:

There are currently around 58,000 active digital tech businesses in the UK.  It employs 1.64 million people, and job growth is more than double that of other sectors.  Roles are generally highly skilled and well paid, compared to other sectors.  Indeed, the average salary is 44% higher than the national average!

Location preferences

Digital tech, as a sector, thrives off well-planned spaces with access to good local infrastructure.  Tech firms and their employees tend to prefer easily accessible, walkable, multi-use districts. This results in the creation of ‘clusters’ of similar firms in central urban locations.

Clustering has a number of advantages for digital tech businesses – including easy access to large talent pools and the ability to network and exchange ideas face-to-face with local, likeminded businesses and employees – a key driver of innovation.

London, Manchester and the Greater South East have some of the largest digital tech clusters in the UK; however, the Tech Nation 2017 report mapped 30 significant clusters across the length and breadth of the UK – from Dundee to Exeter.

Facilitating the growth of the sector

The recent growth of the sector has already led to a number of economic policy responses, including the development of enterprise zones, innovation and business centres, and ‘innovation districts’.  The RTPI guidance also highlights a number of smaller-scale responses that can be utilised to attract and foster tech industry growth, including:

  • ‘de-risking sites’ by making sure that planning requirements are “practical, clear and known in advance of specific proposals coming forward”
  • using public money for assembling and servicing sites that are more challenging
  • the provision of Wi-Fi in specific locations
  • making districts pedestrian and cycling friendly
  • leveraging Public Private Partnership models to build digital infrastructure

In addition to these responses, the RTPI makes three recommendations for planners on how they can create an environment that is attractive to digital tech firms.

First, it suggests that planners should monitor the local economy to get a sense of what local growth industries are.  Policies can then be adapted to local economic conditions.  Some local authorities already do this using company registration data.  For example, Camden Borough Council use this data to inform a quarterly ‘Business and Employment Briefing’.  It covers a range of measures, including business size and type, employment in the borough, commercial property, unemployment, worklessness and qualifications.

In order to attract and assist the growth of the digital tech sector, it is important for local planning teams to have a proper understanding of the sectors’ spatial preferences.  This is particularly important when drawing up local plans.  Therefore, the second recommendation made by the RTPI is that local authorities should employ someone to engage with local tech firms to find out how planning could help to better facilitate their growth. The roles of The Dublin Commissioner for Startups and the Amsterdam Chief Technology Officer are potentially interesting models for this.

Third, the RTPI recommends ensuring that there is sufficient housing, office space and transport infrastructure to meet capacity.  These three elements are the “fundamental ingredients for an economically and socially successful city”.  Without them, no amount of other interventions will attract firms to an area.

The Tech Nation 2017 report found that 30% of digital tech community members cited their local transport infrastructure as a ‘business challenge’.  Tech London Advocates report similar concerns, whilst also highlighting the challenges posed by digital infrastructure: “It has become increasingly clear that a fundamental challenge facing tech companies in London is infrastructure. The tech sector has grown so fast that the provision of office space and digital connectivity is having to play catch up”.

The digitisation of planning

The growth of the digital tech sector not only creates jobs and generates wealth; it creates opportunities for improved efficiency in other sectors too.  In planning, digitisation can free up time and resources, and create new tools for planners to utilise.  From the adoption of  geographic information system (GIS) software for mapping, to experimental trials of 3D modelling software and virtual reality in plan making and community engagement, technology has and continues to present a number of opportunities to improve the planning system.

Beyond planning, innovations in the digital tech sector aid the creation of ‘smart cities’ – where information and communication technology (ICT) and ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) technologies are integrated to manage cities’ assets, with the overall aim of improving efficiency.  Examples of potential usage vary considerably, from supporting people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, to the provision of real-time traffic data, controlling streetlights and monitoring environmental data.

As such, a final recommendation made by the RTPI is to make use of local firms’ skills and resources to address cities’ infrastructural challenges.

Addressing inequality

Despite the rapid growth of the digital tech sector and its contribution to job and wealth creation, there is an increasing recognition that the benefits created by the sector can be insular and often do not spill over to the local economy.

Indeed, studies have found that the higher the share of tech employment in a city, the more income inequality there is.  On this basis, the digital tech sector has been criticised for its potential to create a ‘two-tier economy’.  There are also concerns about the gentrifying effects of digital tech clusters on local areas.  In London, for example, tech growth has increased the cost of living in some parts of the city, displacing smaller firms and lower income families.  It also poses a potential threat to innovation as startups are priced out of successful digital tech clusters.

Clearly addressing these issues poses some significant challenges for policymakers.  Last year, the RTPI made a number of recommendations in this regard, including helping local people to develop the skills needed by local tech companies.

Successful planning

The digital tech sector has enormous potential to enhance economic growth.  Through its ability to create the optimal conditions for the digital tech sector to thrive, planning can help to encourage this growth.  Understanding local economic trends, consulting with digital tech businesses about their needs, and ensuring that local infrastructure has the capacity to meet these needs, are vital to successful planning for the digital tech sector.  At the same time, ensuring that this growth is sustainable and benefits wider society are key challenges for planners.

Metro mayors – what is their worth?

Posted on by

market_townBy Heather Cameron

As voters went to the polls once again on 4th May for the local elections, six combined authorities in England saw directly-elected metro mayors chosen for the first time, as part of the government’s devolution agenda.

The six areas – Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the Tees Valley, the West of England and the West Midlands – account for almost 20% of the population of England. This means a third of the English population, including London, now have a directly-elected metro mayor.

Advocates of the role believe metro mayors have the potential to transform both local democracy and local economies. However, not everyone is as supportive.

What are directly-elected metro mayors and what are their responsibilities?

Directly-elected metro mayors are chairs of their area’s combined authority, elected by the local population. Their role involves working in partnership with the combined authority to exercise the powers and functions devolved by central government, set out in the local area’s devolution deal. In contrast to existing city mayors, who are also directly elected, or local council leaders who make decisions for, and on behalf of, their local authorities, metro mayors have the power to make decisions for whole city regions.

The devolved powers predominantly focus on strategic matters, including housing and planning, skills, transport and economic development, with the exception of Greater Manchester, which also has powers and funding related to criminal justice and health and social care. Each devolution deal is very much tailored to the local area however, so the combined authorities will have varying powers and budgets.

The aim of metro mayors is to support local economic growth, while providing greater democratic accountability.

Concerns

While the government believes the role ensures clear accountability over devolved powers and funding, concerns have been voiced within local government itself about the accountability, effectiveness and necessity of the incoming combined authority mayors. And democratic support for the role has always been weak.

In terms of accountability, metro mayors will not be accountable to an elected assembly, as in London, but only to their cabinet made up of other council leaders. This, and their potentially wide-ranging powers have been highlighted as a concern in terms of “back-room stich-up deals being created between mayors and individual authorities“.

Their introduction has also been described as “potentially worrying” as the local people were never given the opportunity to have a say on the new roles and that, instead, they are products of ‘deals done behind closed doors between councillors and representatives of central government.’

It appears rather ironic that this proposal of greater devolution may actually reflect an imposition from central government of its own policies and desires on local government.

Nevertheless, the new metro mayors do enable greater local control over local matters and have been argued to represent the best chance yet of ensuring devolution is sustainable over time. It is also likely they will get increasing powers over time, as in London.

But the question remains whether they will facilitate local economic growth and help to re-balance the English economy.

Final thoughts

Whether the new metro mayors will succeed in this aim or not, only time will tell. There has been little evidence of improved performance under elected mayors in England so far, although it has been suggested there is some evidence that their introduction has resulted in quicker and more transparent decision-making, that the mayor had a higher public profile, that the council was better at dealing with complex issues, and that there was improved relationships between partners.

Some of the successes of the London mayor have also been suggested to be an indication of the potential impact of the directly-elected mayor role.

As has recently been argued, their success, or otherwise, “should be judged on whether they improve prospects for the people who live in their city regions, stimulating growth and getting local public services working better”.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also like our previous articles on devolution:

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.