As political and economic uncertainty increases so has disillusionment with the government to deal with it effectively and equitably, particularly amongst those who feel left behind. This highlights the need for devolution in the UK that gives back more control to citizens and their neghbourhoods. But, without tackling deep-rooted spatial inequalities through stronger local powers, investment, and accountability, current initiatives like the Plan for Neighbourhoods risk falling short, write Geoff White, Colin Warnock and Peter Tyler.
Uncertainty in the world is growing and many people are stressed and disadvantaged by the destabilisation it brings, especially in places left behind by global trends and crises. A sense has taken hold that the prevailing political and social order has increasingly failed to fulfil its promise of rising living standards, access to good quality public services, and personal security. While some groups and places have enjoyed the benefits of global economic change, a substantial number of others have been ‘left behind’. This has led in many places to disillusionment and disaffection – in profound ‘geographies of discontent’.
The recent British Social Attitudes Survey shows just how disillusioned many voters in the UK are. Only 12% trust the government to put the interests of the nation above those of the party “just about always or most of the time” and an alarming 46% say they would trust the government “almost never”.
Part of the British government’s response to this challenge is to devolve power so that decisions on the allocation of public funding are, and are seen to be, more reflective of local need. The current Devolution Priority Programme and the approach set out in the English devolution white paper are positive steps towards addressing the over centralisation of governance in England. However, there are concerns the government may not be going far enough, delegating functions rather than carrying out a more substantial rewiring of where power lies, particularly in fostering citizen participation and action at the neighbourhood level.
If devolution is to be effective in giving back local control, strategic authorities will need to be alert to the priorities of the people they serve. For this they will have to find ways to enhance local democratic capacity, processes and accountability. A number of options to do this are available at varying scales from neighbourhood to city region and designed to suit various budgets. Each approach has been tested to a degree in different contexts in the United Kingdom (UK) and abroad such as citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting and co-production and developments in digital democracy. However, despite its importance, work on this issue in the UK is relatively limited to date and it does not seem high on the current administration’s agenda.
At the neighbourhood level, the final report of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (ICON) recognises the need not only for radical action but also for a systemic approach that builds capacity in a more bottom-up approach based on neighbourhoods.
This is particularly so for the 613 neighbourhoods it identifies as mission critical in England – neighbourhoods that are furthest away from achieving the government’s five missions and which are closely aligned with previously identified left behind places (see Figure 1).
Success requires area based initiatives, explicitly tasked with drawing in mainstream public spend and investment in social infrastructure appropriate to neighbourhood conditions, with the effort sustained over the longer term.
Re-alignment along these lines will be required if inequalities are to be addressed and local democratic accountability strengthened in ways that promote growth, productivity and living standards in all corners of the UK. Strategic authorities – particularly mayoral strategic authorities with integrated settlements – should have a key role to play in tackling the needs of their most left behind neighbourhoods.
But, despite the shift to greater devolution, central government still refuses to let go. It controls the government’s flagship Plan for Neighbourhoods – place selection, eligibility criteria for investments, boundaries and governance arrangements and the approval of every Regeneration Plan.
And it is miserly in its funding. The Spending Review allocated just £20m over 10 years to each of its targeted 350+ deprived neighbourhoods. Yet, there is compelling evidence that neighbourhood renewal interventions should be well-resourced if they are to make a difference, with New Deal for Communities and Sure Start held up as exemplars. The former allocated the equivalent of over £90m per area over 10 years in 2024/25 prices, demonstrating just how under-powered is the current government’s neighbourhoods policy.
It also lacks the necessary urgency. The initial 100 areas will probably not have the necessary governance and agreed plans within the next year while the timeline for the remaining 250 places is as yet unknown and their funding may even be subject to the perceived success of the trailblazers.
As things stand there is a profound mismatch between the needs of left behind neighbourhoods and the government’s ambition to tackle the problem, the pace of the roll-out, the level of funding attached and the centralisation of the arrangements. If the government is going to turn the tide of national distrust then it urgently needs to raise its game in left behind places and their neighbourhoods.
There are four further critical strands to a more radical policy agenda to address the ‘geographies of discontent’:
- Ensure public resources are allocated according to need. That may not seem such a radical idea but it has been demonstrated that central funding is not necessarily well aligned spatially with estimated need. The government has begun the process of realignment in relation to local government and NHS spending, but more urgency is needed in these and other areas of spending (such as public health and policing).
- Devolving fiscal powers through retention of a share of the national tax take and, more controversially, discretion to introduce local taxes/charges. Existing inequalities in the tax base between different localities would require equalisation funding based on national formulae that acknowledged variations in resources and population needs across different localities (e.g. as in Denmark).
- Increasing private investment in local communities through planning and fiscal levers to induce substantial flows of private funds to invest in public infrastructure and communities – such as adopting a plan-led approach to housing investment (rather than the existing speculative model), use of blended finance models in collaboration with the private sector, and introducing stronger fiscal incentives (including capital gains relief) to induce increased flows of private finance into left-behind places.
- Strengthening accountability in terms of what a recent study termed “outward accountability” – engaging business, employer and third sector leadership, increasing citizen participation directly (e.g., through assemblies, co-production arrangements) and (often neglected) strengthening local media.
There is still time to for the government to use its majority to deliver more radical solutions that will genuinely re-engage citizens and communities and deliver the step change in investment in left behind places that has long been needed.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
