Over the last half-century, policymaking within England has been driven by a top-down governance system that disregards place differences by assuming identical needs across regions. This centralised approach has contributed to the development of persistent interregional economic disparities, particularly between northern and southern England.
Combined Authorities (CAs) serve as England’s current regional governance structures and were integral to the Levelling Up Agenda, a national initiative aimed at addressing these economic imbalances. The agenda sought to enable tailored regional development by offering extensive devolution agreements. However, it has faced criticism for being a potentially centralised political tool under the guise of local empowerment.
Concerns have been raised about whether CAs are truly capable of delivering the place-based economic growth they were designed to achieve. Research suggests that these authorities often remain dependent on central control, leading to regional planning that may inadvertently mirror a uniform, centrally driven agenda rather than addressing local needs effectively.
Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), separate non-statutory entities, collaborated with local businesses to foster economic growth. In regions with CAs, LEPs operated within overlapping boundaries and coordinated with the respective authority. Each LEP was tasked with developing a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), outlining long-term priorities for regional development.
While SEPs were intended to focus on region-specific growth strategies, there are concerns that, like the Levelling Up Agenda, they might function as tools of centralised governance disguised by promises of localised development. This raises questions about the capacity of CAs to deliver the transformative regional growth envisioned by these strategies.
Credit. Author
A data-driven investigation of regional planning
Whilst qualitative and mixed methods have been used to compare CA planning documents, there is an absence of studies adopting a purely quantitative approach. This research aims to address this by performing novel quantitative text and cluster analysis using SEP documents to answer whether CA planning inhibits a place-based or a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. It aims to contribute to the debate on whether CAs are fit for purpose by offering a unique data-driven perspective and comparison of regional priorities.
If regional planning approaches are identical, then decentralisation through Combined Authorities would essentially be futile.
Shivani Sickotra
It is important to understand CA planning approaches, particularly considering their role in the Levelling Up Agenda and reducing regional inequalities in England.
Do combined authorities effectively support place-based strategies?
Exploratory text analysis has revealed varying levels of emphasis on key sectors such as culture, digital, infrastructure, skills, and transport within the Strategic Economic Plans (SEPs) of Combined Authorities (CAs). These variations indicate that CAs are adopting more place-sensitive approaches in their planning processes.
Cluster analysis further supports this finding, identifying two distinct dimensions of regional planning. Firstly, it highlights a north–south divide in CA strategies. Secondly, it reveals a distinction between inland and coastal priorities. Notably, London emerges as an outlier, with its planning uniquely tailored to the capital’s specific needs and context.
This quantitative approach demonstrates that CA planning exhibits a degree of autonomy, with evidence of place-based tendencies, despite centralised constraints. While this suggests that CAs are broadly fit for purpose in addressing regional diversity, it does not preclude their alignment with certain aspects of the central Government’s broader agenda.
What do word clouds reveal about regional priorities?
Credit. Author
Word cloud analysis revealed the most frequent words within SEP clusters. Figure 2(a), which only involves the LEAP SEP, includes many international references such as Dubai, Asia, Singapore, and Paris. As London is the English capital, it is feasible that the SEP had a more global rather than an interregional focus.
It can be inferred that Figure 2(b) coastal regions were grouped as these collectively need to consider similar issues, such as ports, subsea, and offshore energy. Contrastingly, the most frequent words in Figure 2(c) inland cluster, including hydrogen, family, and crime, can be seen to reflect those related to sustainability and community safety. Within landlocked and denser metropolitan areas, a greater focus is typically required on reducing pollution and improving social welfare. The place-specific priorities referred to in these inland SEPs effectively reflect this requirement.
Actionable recommendations: Three steps to maximise place-based growth
- Empower local decision-making
Reducing central control and granting greater autonomy over funding would enable CAs to address region-specific priorities more effectively. This approach could drive economic growth and support efforts to reduce regional inequalities across England. - Encourage regional collaborations
Encouraging inland and coastal CAs to collaborate on shared challenges, such as port development or urban sustainability, would promote resource sharing and knowledge exchange. Aligning similar policy priorities between regions can create more inclusive and cooperative levelling-up strategies. - Enhance inland and coastal policy strategies
Recognising the distinct needs of inland and coastal areas allows for more tailored policy development. By addressing these localised differences, CAs can implement strategies that support sustained and balanced economic growth.
🔬🧫🧪🔍🤓👩🔬🦠🔭📚
Journal reference
Sickotra, S. (2024). Levelling up in a ‘decentralised’England: place-based or ‘one-size-fits-all’strategies?. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 11(1), 724-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2024.2419135
