Levelling up policy can't help 'under-served' communities
Lack of clear objectives, flip-flopping on policy and undue political influence within the government’s levelling up agenda are set to hinder instead of help communities most looking for support.
A new report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy outlines the economic context for levelling up, the funding structure in place to aid it, along with the institute’s recommendations to deal with its limitations.
A key observation in the report highlights the possible lack of continuity between levelling up and also the newest Industrial Strategy.
Jeffrey Matsu, CIPFA Chief Economist, said: “Levelling up, net zero and a vision for global Britain were already being addressed by the Industrial Strategy’s four grand challenges and ten sector deals. Why not develop this method instead of restart?
“The government’s compulsive need to put its own stamp on policy initiatives that curently have nearly 4 years of momentum serves only to reinvent the wheel, uproot effort and create more uncertainty at any given time when economic recovery would benefit most from stability.”
The report also addresses the inherently problematic nature of competitive bidding, as well as the degree of political influence embedded into deciding what projects are taken forwards.
The current bidding process places considerable strain on the resources of local authorities, which could in some instances increase the risk for allocation of funds being in line with the ability of an organisation to bid instead of their established need. At the same time, the Prime Minister has attributed election success in Labour strongholds in part to levelling up.
Joanne Pitt, CIPFA Municipality Policy Manager, added: “Levelling up funding can't be used as a way of influencing voters to the detriment of good decision making. Areas most looking for funding should be supported and permitted to build relationships this national policy based on sound economic judgment rather than a ballot paper. Funding decisions should be separate from political influence, with increased transparency around criteria selection and funding awards.”
