Most popular ⏷ How moving the Capital helps Hartlepool. Gender bias calculator The Centre of the UK Defending Uber BusTracker Imagination not needed. Part 1. Imagination not needed. Part 2. Imagination not needed. Part 3. Why Birmingham fails Who is London? Innovation on buses. Heathrow

Housing ⏷ Counting households. 1. Counting households. 2. The housing market works (where we let it) Hexmaps Adonis is wrong on housing Car free Birmingham

Regional Growth ⏷ How moving the Capital helps Hartlepool. Industrial Strategy. Leeds Growth Strategy 1. Imagination not needed. Part 1. Imagination not needed. Part 2. Imagination not needed. Part 3. Inclusive growth. The BBC in Manchester What works (growth) North-South divide: we never tried Imitating Manchester Why Birmingham fails Who is London? Researching research Replacing UK steel The Economist & The North The State of the North, 2015 Move the Lords! Calderdale Digital Strategy Maths of inequality Income by MSOA Heathrow and localism The NorthernPowerhouse Centralism and Santa Claus Yorkshire backwards London makes us poor

Transport ⏷ The Centre of the UK Defending Uber BusTracker Train time map What works (growth) The Value of Time Innovation on buses. Heathrow 1975 WYMetro Plan

Politics & Economics ⏷ Fifa and the right In defence of the € GDP mystery Liberal protectionists 5 types of EU voter Asylum responsibilities STEM vs STEAM The Economist & Scotland BBC Bias? Northern rail consultation What holds us back? Saving the Union Summing it up

Positive ⏷ Bike Lights Playful Everywhere Greggs vs. Pret Guardian comment generator Consult less, do more! More things for Leeds! Cartoons PubQuest: Birmingham

Tech ⏷ Tap to pay. Open Data in Birmingham Defending Uber BusTracker Train time map Building a TechNation How the UK holds back TechNorth GDS is Windows 8 OpenData at the BBC SimFlood SimSponge See me speak Digital Health Leeds Empties Leeds Site Allocations Building a Chrome extension I hate webkit Visualising mental health Microsoft's 5 easy wins Epson px700w reset Stay inside the Bubble

Old/incomplete ⏷ Orange price rises The future of University Cherish our Capital Dealing with NIMBYs Sponsoring the tube Gender bias calculator MetNetMaker Malaria PhD Symbian Loops Zwack Kegg Project The EU Eduroam & Windows 8 Where is science vital? The Vomcano 10 things London can shove Holbeck Waterwheel

 

The UK’s industrial strategy works well but for the wrong places.

A follow-up to researching research and an accompaniment to page 23 of this edition of Research Fortnight.

Today in CityAM there’s a pretty standard piece on industrial strategy. The author — an economics professor at the University of Buckingham and a fellow at a London-based think tank — argues against industrial strategies.

I agree with a lot of what he writes; governments are poor at picking winners and we, the electorate, are even worse at letting public bodies take the risks needed to innovate. But there’s something important that I think is missing.

Much of the UK’s industrial strategy for the past twenty years has focused not on wasteful subsidies for coal mines and steel mills but on investments in research and development. This is the kind of spending that eventually leads to ARM chips, GSK superdrugs, and carbon-fibre airplane wings. It’s been surprisingly successful.

State R&D spending is very unevenly spread across the UK.

I sell a tool that splits R&D investment into business-linked and non-business linked spending in each sub-region of the UK and plots the result. I’ve taken an excerpt showing the focus of the UK’s industrial strategy for the last two decades.

The further to the right of the graph a points is, the more money that area receives from the UK state to research and develop new products and ideas. London and Buckinghamshire in South-East England are in first and second place.

The further up the graph a points is, the more money businesses in that area invest to research and develop new products and ideas. Cheshire in North England is in first place.

London and Buckinghamshire enjoy the highest non-business spending on R&D of anywhere in the UK. Further North in Cheshire, the government spends almost nothing on R&D while business invests at the highest density in the UK. Source: Eurostat


If Prof. Shackleton looks around and sees too much industrial strategy it is probably because in Buckinghamshire and London the government invests an unusually large amount. If he travelled north to Cheshire he would see that the state is almost entirely absent and huge research and development efforts are led by the private sector.

If industrial strategies were bad for economies we might expect Cheshire and its nearest city of Manchester to be richer than Buckinghamshire and London. We see the exact opposite.

The GVA tool above is available for free here.
Please contact me to license the R&D tool; it works for all EU countries.


The industrial strategy that the UK government has been pursing for the past twenty years has worked well for the South of England and badly for the North of England. Instead of getting rid of it we should consider shifting our national focus, maybe even our government, from London to Manchester.

blog comments powered by Disqus