Search

Levelling up and the everyday economy are two crucial concepts for understanding the direction of policy making in the UK, but the relationship between them has not yet been fully explored. Moreover, the UK's industrial and regional policies are woefully underdeveloped. This article suggests how levelling up and the everyday economy concepts could contribute to Labour's emerging industrial and regional policies. It argues that Labour is right to pursue an economic growth agenda, but must make growth work for communities and workers, and the everyday economy can help. The everyday economy can contribute to, and benefit from, local productivity growth, but regions still need companies that export or are at the technological frontier to raise demand, productivity and pay. Labour should work with the government's Levelling Up White Paper, but this was overly focussed on cities and knowledge intensive business services: there is an economic case for including towns and manufacturing too, and they should prioritise connecting places and sectors, building on the diverse strengths which different places can offer, and setting a long‐term direction of travel. Over time, Labour should try to ensure that cities, towns and smaller communities are better connected, better coordinated and more specialised within larger regions. Labour should, therefore, set out an industrial and regional strategy; work up an economic development toolkit; and devolve economic powers to Mayoral Combined Authorities and councils. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community wealth building provides an important counterpoint to the orthodoxy of place based economic policy in the UK. It puts forward a framework for economic change which shows that local areas can intervene effectively to build wealth from within so that they are less reliant upon extractive forms of economic development. Instead, wealth building within a community is about recognising the wealth that already exists in an area and intervening to encourage that wealth to flow more readily, particularly from capital to labour. This article explores the background to the development of community wealth building in the UK and its connection with the debate on the everyday economy. It finds that there is a close alignment between the objectives of building wealth and the everyday economy, particularly in areas which not only feel 'left behind', but arguably, who have been kept behind by a policy regime which has actively dismantled their sense of place, agency and identity, and in turn, devalued the role and purpose of the businesses and economy that already exists, in favour of elusive 'growth' and/or 'pioneer' sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we explore the implications of Brexit for the UK and the EU's development policies and strategic directions, focusing on the former. While it is likely that the operational process of disentangling the UK from the various development institutions of the EU will be relatively straightforward, the choices that lie ahead about whether and how to cooperate thereafter are more complex. Aid and development policy touches on a wide range of interests-security, trade, climate change, migration, gender rights, and so on. We argue that Brexit will accelerate existing trends within UK development policy, notably towards the growing priority of private sector-led economic growth strategies and blended finance tools. There are strong signals that UK aid will be cut, as successive secretaries of state appear unable to persuade a substantial section of the public and media that UK aid and development policy serves UK interests in a variety of ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A dynamic of global economic development means that many countries are experiencing uneven development and their citizens are increasingly split between those who can access high-skill jobs and those who cannot. As a result some citizens are living in cosmopolitan areas of growth and others in backwater areas of decline. There are emerging out of these processes two versions of England. In cosmopolitan areas we find an England that is global in outlook, liberal and more plural in its sense of identity. In provincial backwaters we find an England that is inward-looking, relatively illiberal, negative about the EU and immigration, nostalgic and more English in its identity. This bifurcation of England is already having political effects, reflected in the outcome of the 2015 general election. It will further reconfigure politics over the next two decades, creating diverse political citizens and a complex array of challenges and dilemmas for governments, political parties, campaigners and political organisers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the impact of political planning on social and political consensus that may lead to economic growth in Great Britain. Failure of materialist policies and planning to enhance the quality of life as measured by indicators of crime, delinquency and psychiatric disorders; Details on the terms of inadequacies of statutory planning organization; Scope of participatory democracy and the promotion of openness in public policy processes.

This article presents the Hudson report on economic condition of Great Britain. According to the standard economic indices, Britain's growth rate averaged a mere 2-8 per cent, over the last eighteen years, comparable with that of the U.S., but well below that of France, Italy, Germany and Japan. If the problem is not solved, say the authors, Britain is headed for "a social and political upheaval". There is no shortage of explanations for Britain's relative decline, though it is hard to tell from the writing which is cause and which is effect.

The article reports that regional development policy has become an essential component of full employment and welfare policy in Great Britain. The established policy contributed to the spread of opportunities and facilities between regions. Moreover, the approaching completion of the traditional industries and inflation problems points to the need for a clearer investigation on regional issues.

The article discusses Great Britain's Department of Economic Affairs (D.E.A.) and Economic Planning during the 1960s. The role that the D.E.A. plays in the British economic planning, including in regard to public expenditures and in relation to the control that the government has over the British economy, is discussed. An overview of the British government's efforts to enhance economic development, including its creation of the National Economic Development Council (N.E.D.C.), is provided. The D.E.A.'s relationship with British industries is also discussed.

The article reports on the study concerning the methods of investing large sum of public money in the capital developments by the Great Britain Select Committee on Nationalized Industries. The sum involved about £2,000 million a year, which is equivalent to that of a manufacturing industry. The Committee contends that the sum is not enough to ensure a rational allocation of national resources, and recommends corporate planning for an overall view of the organization as a whole.