This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Paul Angrave, Director of Public Affairs and Engagement and William Wells, Deputy Director of Research & Enterprise at the University of Leicester.
This blog is part of series of HEPI publications marking twenty five years of devolution. This includes:
- A blog by HEPI’s Director, Nick Hillman Has Devolution Gone to Far?
- A blog by Professor John Denham The Case for the Devolution of Higher Education Policy
- A HEPI report Evolution of Devolution: How higher education policy has diverged across the four nations of the UK
As UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) responds to the budget and the government’s economic development plans – particularly those aimed at driving growth through devolved Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) – it is crucial that this emphasis on place-based initiatives does not inadvertently widen existing regional disparities.
The English Devolution Bill will outline the government’s plans to establish a blanket of devolution deals across England. At present, these deals are negotiated voluntarily by individual areas, and there are no immediate plans to mandate a uniform approach to devolution across England from Whitehall. The principle that local areas should define their own future aligns with the goal of empowering local decision-makers. The long-term ambition of extending devolution across every part of England should eventually create parity. However, in the short term, an uneven picture across the country carries risks that must be considered carefully.
In many cases, Mayoral Combined Authorities are taking on more leadership in place-based research and development (R&D), creating opportunities for universities to have an even greater impact through innovation and knowledge exchange. For example, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester were part of a £100 million deal for Innovation Accelerators, aimed at boosting regional economies through translational R&D. This initiative recognises that universities are key to supporting Labour’s five missions and its broader economic growth agenda.
However, while universities in devolved regions may take a more central role in driving innovation through MCAs, there is a potential downside: funding may increasingly be directed to these areas, creating a “two-tier” system that overlooks regions with significant innovation potential but no devolved governance structure. This could undermine the basic principle that funds should be invested into areas where the need for economic growth and innovation is greatest.
Universities outside these devolved areas still have the potential to make a considerable impact on their local economies and contribute to the government’s missions. These universities may, however, find themselves at risk of diminishing investment as the focus shifts toward regions with established Mayoral Combined Authorities. This issue should be a high priority for UKRI as it considers its future approach to place-based investment.
The role of universities outside devolved regions
In the current landscape, it is essential for universities to work within existing structures and build strong partnerships to ensure that local growth remains a priority – especially in areas outside of Mayoral Combined Authorities. For example, in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, our universities have come together to form the Universities Partnership – a civic agreement. In collaboration with five local authorities across Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, the University of Leicester, Loughborough University, and De Montfort University are working to deliver tangible impacts through research, education and knowledge exchange.
A key focus of this partnership is addressing well-known economic challenges in the region.
The East Midlands – Leicestershire included – faces significant economic obstacles. It has the lowest productivity of any English region, the third-lowest government and business investment in R&D per capita, low levels of foreign direct investment, and a GDP per head that is 20% below the national average. The goal of the Universities Partnership is to tackle these challenges head-on.
One example is VentureVersity, a project designed to foster innovation in the region. A collaboration between the University of Leicester, De Montfort University, Loughborough University and the Leicester start-up community, it translates university research, knowledge and IP to create new businesses, services and products. It generates a market place for university ideas and nurtures them through teams of entrepreneurs, academics and students, to bring more university spin outs to market. The outputs will ignite innovation in the region and spark the types of knowledge-intensive activities that can boost productivity in the region.
These kinds of projects, if funded at the scale, have the potential to transform local economies.
Making an impact through research and innovation
Another prominent example of local impact is Space Park Leicester, a £100 million industry-academic space science hub. Led by the University of Leicester, the project is turning university research into commercial impact. It is expected to generate £750 million in Gross Value Added (GVA) and create 2,500 jobs in an area ranked among the 5% most disadvantaged in the country, according to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. Space Park Leicester is home to leading companies and organisations, including Rolls-Royce, Airbus, AWE, the UK Space Agency, Satellite Applications Catapult, CGI, EarthSense, and Maxar.
In partnership with the neighbouring National Space Centre, Space Park Leicester is inspiring the next generation of space scientists, providing educational opportunities and public engagement from primary school through to PhD level. The programme also works on outreach initiatives in the local community, aligning with Labour’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity in the UK.
Given the profound impact universities can have in their regions, it is essential that UKRI and the government recognise the importance of supporting innovation and R&D in all areas that can benefit.
The need for regional investment based on need, not governance
As of now, English devolution covers around 48% of England’s population, with the expectation that this will rise to 64% by 2025 with the addition of new deals (both mayoral and non-mayoral). MCAs are at very different stages of development, with bespoke deals and varying levels of devolution.
Managing place-based R&D as the picture of devolution evolves is something that requires close partnership between government, funding bodies and universities both inside and outside MCAs. With the expectation that a uniform approach to devolution may take several years to resolve, the guiding principle for regional investment must consider carefully the greatest regional need and the greatest potential for impact.
In the meantime, universities outside of MCAs can continue to use their influence to forge local innovation partnerships with their local authority partners, as we are doing so successfully with the Universities Partnership in Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, commit to driving local growth through world-leading R&D and stand ready to play a civic role independent of the governance structures.
This article raises a very important issue but I believe the proposed, implied solution of regionally lead allocation of R & D funding is a big mistake and is an “upside down” response to a complex issue.
The remark that “Given the profound impact universities can have in their regions, it is essential that UKRI and the government recognise the importance of supporting innovation and R&D in all areas that can benefit.” may well be correct but how this will be done and by whom is critical?
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is a national body and needs to start this process at a national level. What might be right and helpful for a particular region might not be right for the Nation as a whole. If the process established for funding is based on the usual model of asking for bids for local regional funding from a specific amount of money (say £1000 million) there will be the usual scenario of the amount being bid for being around 3 times what is available.
The danger here, as always, is that the final allocations are driven by local political dynamics that will not result in the best economic allocation.
The questions should be:
1 What are the national outcomes, expectations and objectives of our total R & D budget?
2 Which are the specific subject areas, listed by priority, to deliver the best return?
3 What are the criteria for evaluation this list of priority?
4 What specific projects should be backed?
5 Who are the best people who will form the teams most likely to deliver the best results?
6 Where, in terms of geography, should these teams be based?
Historically this type of decision was much easier to make. When the objective was to deliver the best, most efficient energy, then (at different times)the answers were, where the coal is, where the gas is, where the oil is, where the wind is, where the water is etc NOT put it in Grimsby because this is where the poorest people need help.
ically ere are the best