In this piece Professor John Bryson, of the University of Birmingham, argues that one size really does not fit all when it comes to economic growth and that growth-related policy must be tailored to individual regions and localities. He also emphasises the link between quality of life and good economic growth and suggests that policy must reflect this connection.
Enabling Good Growth: Place-based Solutions and Quality of Life Considerations
A relationship has been identified between good growth and inclusion with economic growth being identified as being of central importance for improvements in living standards for those at the low end of the income distribution. In the UK, economic policy has pivoted towards the concept of ‘good growth’. An excellent example is the 2021 plan for London’s future which is positioned around good growth “that is socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable”. This link between policy and good growth takes many forms. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are investing £184m in a good growth investment plan that will be delivered from April 2022 to March 2026. In this plan, good growth is defined as that which is green and inclusive and this includes “empowering proud and vibrant communities”.
Economic development is simultaneously informed by academic and political fashions. Good growth is another such fashion. In many respects, the good growth policy movement is another reworking of modernization theory. Modernization theory was developed in the United States in the 1950s to understand economic and social development. This approach was much critiqued for suggesting that culture and local traditions held back economic development and that all societies would go through similar growth stages. Modernization theory continues to influence approaches to economic policy. Part of this influence comes from the emphasis that modernization theory placed on the contribution that policymakers and intellectual elites could make to economic development.
Good growth as a policy objective must avoid many of the problems associated with modernization theory. The most important challenge is to avoid assuming that good growth will take the same form irrespective of the local context. In the case of Africa, for example, too often approaches to economic policy developed in the Global North are copied without appreciating that good growth requires highly localised or contextualised policy interventions.
There is an assumption here between good growth and policy that seeks to understand local circumstances. In many respects, this assumption resonates with another local economic development policy fashion. From 2014, smart specialisation became central to regional and cohesion policy in the European Union. This is a place-based approach founded upon identifying and building upon a place’s existing strengths and related potentials. Smart specialisation should result in growth, but not necessarily good growth. However, with smart specialisation there is a major problem as regions and countries copy one another. Such copying of current policy fashions undermines the place-based focus that is central to smart specialisation.
For policymakers there is a major challenge. Economic growth is required to support taxation and public service provision. This is complicated by aging populations that are altering the balance between those at work and those in receipt of welfare payments. The solution is economic growth that includes productivity enhancement, but also a new form of growth that reduces negative environmental impacts. This is a difficult policy goal to achieve. There are two challenges.
On the one hand, good growth requires much more than a focus on economic development interventions. The West Midlands, UK, is an excellent example of this policy challenge. Recent research has measured the gap between the demand and supply of skills at the local level and identified significant, but localised skill mismatches. These skill mismatches contribute to unemployment. This is a complex policy problem as the solution requires an alignment of skills, transport and housing polices. The good growth challenge is that policy development is siloed. In the UK, for example, housing policy is the preserve of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, transport has its own department, and economic development is dealt with by the Department for Business & Trade and HM Treasury.
For the West Midlands, one challenge is that housing of a particular type is not located close to some job locations and public transport fails to link residential locations with employment sites. This research shows that growth requires housing that is co-located with employment opportunities as this would increase employment and reduce environmental pollution. The emphasis placed on good growth being environmentally sustainable is important. One dimension is the link between economic and social activity and air quality as poor air quality is England’s largest environmental health risk.
On the other hand, there is a radical alternative to the current emphasis of nearly all economic development policies. A recent peer reviewed paper explores why local economic development policies are ineffective and then outlines an alternative approach. This paper’s argument is that it is natural for policymakers to be concerned with economic development, but that “there is abundant research to suggest that the role of quality of life (amenities and education) play a significant role in prosperity. However, traditional economic development in practice does little to improve either of these factors”. This quality of life argument is well-known by economic geographers. A paper written in 1989 by David Keeble, then an economic geographer at the University of Cambridge, highlighted the “fundamental importance of ‘quality of life’ considerations” and that “quality of life attractions of many small towns and rural areas” exert “a major influence”. One of the issues here is a focus on indigenous growth that will be more resilient and sustainable and today this would be defined as a form of good growth.
Place really matters. This piece is a call for action that takes two forms. First, all policymakers and politicians must appreciate that there is no one good growth economic solution; good growth requires highly nuanced place-based solutions. Universities have an important role to play as local anchor institutions or “just anchors”. Second, enabling good growth requires policy alignment across what are too often highly siloed policy domains. The focus of this policy alignment should recognise the importance of quality of life considerations as being critical. The implication being that policies that are too focused on economic development have a danger of undermining quality of life and this then will dampen economic futures.
About the author
John R. Bryson (BA (Hons) TCD, PhD Leic., FAcSS, FRGS, FHEA, FeRSA) has held research and teaching posts at the Universities of St Andrews, Cambridge, Wales and most recently at the University of Birmingham where he is Professor of Enterprise and Economic Geography. He was Director of the Service and Enterprise Research Unit (SERU) and founder of City-REDI.
John is an economic geographer whose research focusses on understanding people and organisations in place and space and the ways in which place-based adaptation occurs including understanding barriers and enablers to adaptation. He has made significant contributions to understanding and explaining the complex ways in which production is organized through space and in place and via a variety of forms of enterprise.
Image Credit: Ben Guerin on Unsplash