North Yorkshire

Evaluating City of York Council’s Universal Free School Meals

Picture of three lunch boxes contents. Sandwiches and fruit inside.

Dr Rebecca Kerr, Y-PERN Policy Fellow, University of York

Food for thought? It seems so

Y-PERN colleagues, along with researchers from TYPE, collaborated with colleagues from the University of Leeds and the City of York Council (CYC) to evaluate the Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) pilot in York city. The pilot, launched in January 2024 as the York Hungry Minds appeal provides universal free lunches at one school and universal free breakfasts at another. This scheme was developed in response to concerns about the impact of cost-of-living pressures, with some neighbourhoods in York ranked among the 20% most deprived areas in the UK. Many families are struggling financially, and children can arrive at school hungry.

The pilot had key target policy outcomes, which included reducing the stigma attached for receiving free school meals (FSM), ensuring that children currently excluded from the national FSMs would be included and broadly, to reach all children living in poverty. The scheme also sought to improve educational outcomes, enhance children’s health, create local jobs, and promote community wealth. Additionally, the CYC hoped that the UFSM scheme would align with the Council’s four core commitments to health, the environment, affordability, and human rights and equalities.

The evaluation combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. Researchers from the University of York led the qualitative analysis, drawing on interviews with school staff and parents from the pilot schools, while the University of Leeds team conducted quantitative analysis. Together, the analysis explored the scheme’s impact on key outcomes and provided insights into the broader challenges of implementing UFSM policies.

The core findings of the qualitative research are as follows:

Affordability:

Families have been placed under financial strain due to rising insecurity and the cost-of-living crisis. Staff report that pupils could arrive at school hungry and lack adequate pack-ups. Parents reflected that the UFSM alleviated some financial pressures enabling families to reorganise their family budgets.

Equalities:

Universalism a core principle of the UFSM pilot, aiming to eliminate stigma that may be associated with receiving FSM and to stop pupils from feeling different to their peers. Interviewees also note that universalism was also to remove the stigma of means testing to access FSM. Interviewees highlighted that universalism also removed the stigma tied to means-testing for FSM access. However, limiting the pilot to schools in the city’s most deprived wards risked inadvertently reinforcing stigma, as the program’s association with these areas might mark it as targeted rather than universal. Expanding the pilot city-wide could help address this issue. Additionally, the pilot’s funding model, described as resembling a “charity model”, was noted as another potential source of stigma.

Outcomes:

Staff observed improvements in pupils’ school readiness, noting better punctuality, attendance, and overall wellbeing. Enhanced readiness to learn was also reported, with staff at both schools highlighting improvements in cognitive functioning and educational outcomes. Parents shared that their children were happier to attend school in the mornings due to the breakfast provision. They also expressed that the pilot reduced time pressures in the morning and simplified the planning of school lunches, contributing to a smoother routine.

Health:

Parents noted that their children enjoyed a variety of healthy meals and appreciated being informed in advance about meal selections. Some parents mentioned that their children were willing to try new foods at school, broadening their dietary habits. School staff observed that spending time with pupils in the dining hall provided an opportunity for one-on-one interactions in a safe, informal setting, allowing for more holistic support outside the usual classroom environment.

Although the scheme is still in its early stages, there are some indications of improved physical health among pupils. More notably, there are strong signs of enhanced wellbeing, happiness, and mental health, evidenced by pupils’ increased engagement and positive play during break times.

Environment:

Most pupils generally finish their meals, though some food waste occurs, particularly with vegetables. This suggests a need for greater consideration of what children are more likely to eat. Catering staff may be well-positioned to provide insights and recommendations for meal adjustments to better align with pupils’ preferences while maintaining nutritional value.

Implementation:

As part of the evaluation, we also examined the practical aspects of implementing the scheme, especially in light of the Council’s plans to extend the pilot to other schools in the area. A key insight was the significant amount of time required for effective implementation. This includes considerations around the allocation of staff time needed to manage and sustain such a programme, as well as ensuring that school facilities are adequately prepared to support the initiative. With additional time for implementation, schools could more effectively manage communication with parents and guardians, addressing a key challenge identified during the pilot.

Further evaluative work will build on the collaboration between colleagues at the University of York and the University of Leeds to align research findings more comprehensively. Additional quantitative analysis is expected to provide deeper insights into pupil attendance and punctuality, while further qualitative research with pupils will centre on their experiences of receiving UFSMs.

Following initial research, the CYC plans to extend the UFSM programme to more schools across the city.

See the interim report here

Dr Rebecca Kerr is a Y-PERN Policy Fellow at the University of York, hosted within The York Policy Engine (TYPE).

Photo by Antoni Shkraba

Universities collaborating for the good of our regions is fast becoming a policy imperative

Y-PERN’s Policy Director Dr Peter O’Brien and Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher explore the kinds of value that are created when higher education institutions work together regionally.

Keir Starmer’s new Labour government is committed to delivering five key missions: growth; NHS reform; clean energy; safer streets; and opportunity for all. Underpinning this approach is a shift towards a more active, smarter state that works in partnership with business, trade unions, local leaders, and devolved governments, guided by a new industrial strategy that seeks equitable economic growth across the country.

A sub-national architecture of devolution is taking root in England as a model of civic leadership, led by mayors and mayoral combined authorities. An English Devolution Bill is also set to drive further effective regional development by giving mayoral combined authorities and local authorities greater capacity and resources to set out ambitious growth agendas for the regions and to pull the necessary levers to achieve those ambitions.

In London, the capital’s devolved infrastructure goes back 25 years, while in Yorkshire, by June 2025, there will be four mayoral combined authorities with elected mayors covering Hull and East Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire. Devolution is always an unfinished story; as devolved administrations mature, they build capacity to take on more responsibility and accomplish more.

There are significant opportunities for higher education institutions in Labour’s adoption of a place-based, partnership-led approach, bringing in skills, research and innovation, educational opportunity, public sector productivity, and effective policymaking at the regional level. But it will also test the capability of universities to forge and sustain meaningful regional collaborations with each other and with regional policymakers and industry.

Our combined experience of working in regional university networks shows the power and impact that networked collaboration among higher education institutions can have, but as a sector we need to collectively buy into the idea that collaboration for the good of our regions is not an optional nice-to-have, but a core part of the higher education mission.

Strength in diversity

Policymakers and their teams have lots of stakeholders and priorities, and limited bandwidth. Regional groupings of universities offer the golden opportunity for efficiency in connecting up policymaking to expert insight and research, without the need to go from institution to institution.

One of the real strengths a regional network can offer is access to diversity of institutional knowledge; with research-intensive, modern and specialist universities involved in both our networks, our collective views are nuanced and our access to insight very broad indeed, meaning we can broker expertise across a wide range of local priorities.

This capability is seen at its most powerful through strategic engagement with regional policymakers. London, for example, has a plethora of boards and policy initiatives such as the London Partnership Board, which brings together representatives of key institutions across the capital including business, health, local government, and further education to build London’s capability to tackle future challenges.

In Yorkshire, a ground-breaking memorandum of understanding between Yorkshire Universities and Yorkshire and Humber Councils provides a framework for a long-term strategic partnership between local government and higher education in the region. The Yorkshire and Humber Policy Engagement & Research Network (Y-PERN) facilitates inclusive and place-based academic policy engagement, while the Yorkshire and Humber Policy Innovation Partnership (Y-PIP) is expanding the range of research activity co-designed and co-delivered between the region’s universities, policymakers, local communities and businesses to help drive positive, practical change within and across Yorkshire.

It’s worth adding that the London Higher and Yorkshire Universities staff are accustomed to working with policymakers, skilled in generating ideas and connections, and knowledgeable about the policy landscape – that doesn’t mean that individual institutions don’t need those capabilities to some degree, but having a shared hub of expertise has a helpful amplification effect and can be a space for capacity building on the development, monitoring and evaluation of policy and its impacts.

Regional growth

The dual role of universities in educating a highly skilled workforce and driving innovation and knowledge exchange through research means that they are critical delivery partners in regional economic growth agendas. Regional networks can play a role not only in forging collaborations between universities, but in connecting the sector to business and local communities.

Each of our organisations has a clear – though slightly different – theory of how our member higher education institutions collectively contribute to economic growth, including through tackling specific productivity challenges, investment in infrastructure, improving business leadership and management, educating future entrepreneurs, and through cultural and civic engagement – and we’re always ready with the examples to back up those arguments. Our analysis is rooted in a whole-region context for innovation activity, giving us a view of the larger ecosystem in which our universities are operating and the various assets that are available across our networks.

On a practical level, regional university groups can use their convening power to deliver major changes. In Yorkshire and the Humber a legacy of high-carbon emitting industry, threats from flooding, and a series of energy transitions that have affected communities inequitably across the region have generated a consensus on a need not only for decarbonisation, but a green energy agenda infused with social justice. The Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission, the largest place-based climate commission in the UK acts as a vehicle to mobilise Yorkshire’s universities’ combined research and policy expertise to tackle climate, sustainability and environmental challenges.

Expanding opportunity

Individual institutions have their own widening participation missions and priorities for access, but through collaboration we can expand our collective reach to prospective students and create a much more navigable higher education opportunity landscape for learners. London Higher’s Access HE division is long-established, and is able to create opportunities for targeted programmes of outreach activity to priority groups such as care leavers, and engage in collective advocacy on widening participation funding.

London Higher’s recent acquisition, redesign and relaunch of the Study London campaign is equally helping to drive international education exports to both the capital and nation by bringing together London’s higher education sector under one powerful brand to drive growth and opportunities, and maintain London’s competitive advantage on the global stage.

As in other parts of the country, universities in London and Yorkshire have much to contribute to interventions and investments that match needs of their localities. While London’s universities have deep local roots, a large number of the capital’s institutions are inherently global, with the ability to leverage international connections to attract and retain major foreign direct investment. However, the funding and talent that arrives in London does not only benefit the London region but generates wider impacts right across the country.

Similarly, Yorkshire’s universities have global connections that transcend regional boundaries. In the case of Sheffield Hallam and York St John, some institutions are also forging a physical presence in the capital, making them key players in creating, nurturing and retaining talent and driving international trade and investment. The powerful reputations of London’s and Yorkshire’s universities are therefore vital to delivering on national and sub-national growth agendas.

Wherever the region, and whatever its strengths, regional university groups are going to be key under this government in delivering the devolution deals each part of the country needs.

The article was originally published in Wonkhe, the home of the UK higher education debate

The Labour Government, the King’s Speech and a new path to devolution?

The new Government’s plans for English devolution are rightly ambitious, but important questions remain and more consideration should be given to the whole picture of sub-national governance and the role of local government in it – argue Y-PERN Policy Fellow Dr Neil Barnett (Leeds Beckett University) and Paul Hayes, Senior Policy Engagement Fellow at Leeds University Business School.

The incoming Labour Government has wasted no time setting out its intentions for the Devolution agenda in England. Notably, in an early and much-publicised meeting at No. 10, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner met with the twelve elected Metro Mayors in England to outline the intention to deepen their responsibilities, give them more financial flexibility, particularly for economic development, transport, skills and housing, and to establish a new relationship of central-mayoral partnership. This has been hailed as a significant change in the relationship to one in which Mayors considered they had been ‘talked down to’ by previous administrations. The new Government clearly see sub-national devolution as key to driving its growth agenda, with new responsibilities over spatial planning mooted, along with a requirement to produce Local Growth Plans.

Quickly following the meeting, Angela Rayner wrote to all areas she labelled as ‘devolution deserts’ (e.g. Hampshire) not yet covered by a devolution deal to, essentially, ‘get a move on’. Following this, the King’s Speech outlined an English Devolution Bill which will set out a new, standardised, Devolution Framework with devolution as the ‘default setting’.

“The Government in Whitehall is overloaded, and as a result people in the regions grow increasingly impatient about the decisions being made in London which they know could be better made locally. Under our new style of government, we will devolve government power so that more decisions are made locally.
We will bring forward a sensible measure of local government reform which will involve a genuine devolution of power from the central government.”
1970, Conservative Party Election Manifesto – ‘A better tomorrow’

An end to bartering behind closed doors?

There is much to be welcomed here. The detail of the new Devolution Framework remains to be seen, but it offers an alternative to the bartering, often ‘behind closed doors’, of deal-making with individual areas, which has been the case so far, and has been based on an opaque and piecemeal process seemingly without underlying principles. It is not yet clear whether this is intended to fully replace the ‘Tiered’ approach to Devolution (with four levels of powers) introduced by Michael Gove (former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities); but it does seem likely that, as of now, differing places will find themselves with differing powers.

With respect to Yorkshire, it remains to be seen if there will be a ‘levelling up’ of the Combined Authorities (CAs), to give a more congruent set of responsibilities within and across the Region. Another issue is the current status of the Devolution Deal for a Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority, agreed with Gove, but yet to be confirmed.

Remaining questions: how will power be bestowed?

There are, however, other questions, which remain. The Prime Minister has spoken about new ‘powers’ for Metro Mayors, but it is unclear as to what this means in practice at this stage. For example, will Mayors, and CA’s get new statutory duties, or will they get more responsibility for allocating resources and funding, as is the case now. Will the new ‘powers’, be allocated to Mayors as elected officeholders, or go to the Combined Authorities collectively? Early indications seem to be that the Government is keen to ‘streamline’ decision-making by extending the powers of Mayors and allowing for majority voting in Combined Authority decision-making. This, however, has the potential to bring to the fore competing claims for democratic legitimacy between Mayors and constituent local authority leaders.

Remaining questions: the role of local authorities

Secondly, the focus of the devolution discourse, so far, has been on Mayors and CAs. There has been little mention of devolution to local authorities, but it is local government that provides the foundational services which must underpin any attempt to ‘kickstart’ economic growth. Angela Rayner has recently recognised this, and promised longer-term and more flexible funding settlements, and an end to competitive bidding for pots of funding (what one Council Leader referred to as ‘knobbly knees contests’). Councils will, however, continue to face severe financial constraint, at least in the medium-term, but as it stands it is unclear where (or if at all) they fit in the ‘Devolution Revolution’, and some fear that local government powers may actually be ‘sucked upwards’. Several areas have been unable, or unwilling, to secure agreement on the necessary combinations of councils necessary to be granted a Devolution Deal. The Government, however, is seemingly intent on getting more areas into the devolution fold by September this year. Not only does this seem overly ambitious, but paradoxical in the sense that the whole direction of travel is supposed to be based on enhancing local voice.

Moreover, the agenda also seems to continue the focus set in train by the previous government; devolution will be agreed between government and the ‘top level’ unitary or county local authorities (Angela Rayner’s letter was addressed to the leaders of these councils) with the remaining District Councils in county areas only considered as consultees.

We are likely to see a continuation of an inexorable move towards large, unitary, county councils in a ‘streamlining’ of the system, completing a re-organisation of English local government, which has proceeded incrementally and almost by stealth over the past two decades. This is despite clear evidence of the service or financial benefits of moving to larger councils, let alone the implications for local democracy.

The new Government’s intention to waste no time and move quickly to deliver growth, and its focus on delivery, are understandable, and, given this context, stepping back to raise the issue of wider local government structures may seem somewhat obtuse. However, more time and consideration should be given to the whole picture of sub-national governance and the role of local government in it.

Remaining questions: what’s the best approach for delivery?

Finally, the new Government’s ambitions are rightly and necessarily ambitious. A new approach based on partnership and outcomes has been signalled. The focus is on delivery and ‘what works’. Here, necessary conditions have been highlighted – the need for ‘joined-up’ government, and for a mission-driven approach, for example. Those of a certain age (like the authors) will remember these phrases as central to the Blair Government’s ‘modernisation’ agenda for public services and indeed New Labour’s ‘Third Way’. Moreover, localism and handing down power from Whitehall played a big part in the Coalition Government’s rhetoric after 2010. In the case of New Labour, the result, in reality, was an intensification of central control via hundreds of performance indicators; the Coalition Government passed the Localism Act 2012, which fell far short of the rhetoric, and the subsequent years were also dominated by austerity and intense financial control.

This is not to say that all governments disappoint, but to point out the scale of the task if Labour are to re-set central-local relations and, in doing so, achieve the long-pursued and seemingly elusive ambition of changing civil service culture and the desire of Ministers to keep close oversight for things over which they will be expected to assume public scrutiny.

The process of learning from evidence, then, should include learning from the difficulties previously experienced in striving for ‘joined-up’ approaches, for example, and from areas where there might have been signs of success. One initiative worth re-examining, for example, which ticks the boxes of localism, joined up working and a focus on outcomes and missions, would be place-based budgeting (aka ‘Total Place’), which was piloted during the Brown administration, but not built on after 2010.

It may also be worth re-examining proposals around what Hazel Blears (former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) described in 2007 as ‘devolution to the doorstep’. What powers should be devolved down to local council level, and potentially below? Freedoms to bring in local private landlord licensing without central approval immediately come to mind, and there will be other localist ideas that councils may want to push Angela Rayner for. The new Government’s intended new path gives fresh hope for that such initiatives can be brought back into the debate.

Reflecting on the voices of female entrepreneurs in shaping policy for York & North Yorkshire and beyond

Dr Rebecca Kerr, Y-PERN Policy Fellow (York & North Yorkshire), talks about her work examining the evidence around place-based approaches to supporting female entrepreneurship.

York and North Yorkshire finds itself at an exciting juncture of change. In the run-up to the new combined mayoral authority and mayoral elections, comes a distinct desire to ensure the policy concerns of the region’s residents are placed to the fore.

With this in mind, we initiated a piece of collaborative research focused on female entrepreneurship in the York and North Yorkshire region – working with the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and Enterprise Works at the University of York. Research in this area generally exists at a national scale, but there’s clear demand for more place-based evidence which can inform sub-regional policy – as shown by the positive and enthused engagement from some of our region’s female entrepreneurs at a workshop we held at York’s historic Guildhall.

Throughout the workshop, women noted that they wanted support and mentorship from other women in business and not self-proclaimed ‘experts’ with limited comparable lived experience. This sentiment was placed to the heart of this research undertaken on female entrepreneurship in York and North Yorkshire, where each stage of research design was informed by participant engagement to ensure we were asking the right questions and collecting the most appropriate data. After spending time on community consultation processes and survey, the workshop event focused on solutions to identified challenges around seven key themes.

This research will be published in due course. In the meantime, the process offers valuable insights into regional policy development. It sheds light on the intricate balance between relying on ‘experts’, engaging in community consultation and learning from policy development experiences. This is especially pertinent in the context of navigating the complexities of a series of new devolution deals in Yorkshire.

From national to sub-regional policy, avoiding diluted success

Understanding the national picture is important when prioritising research as there is a clear rationale to reflect on pre-existing policy solutions. But the geographical, social, economic and political landscape can make the transferability of these top-level recommendations somewhat diluted. While there is pre-existing research on female entrepreneurship, notably in the Alison Rose Report and subsequent iterations, Professor Kiran Trehan (Enterprise Works and member of the Y-PERN Directorate) has argued that a place-based focused piece of research is needed to hear the experiences, challenges and barriers and potential policy solutions that are most appropriate for the region’s female entrepreneurs.

Peck (2011) highlights this sentiment clearly when considering the increasing permeability of geographical boundaries for policies, indicating that while policies freely cross these boundaries, their impact is not standardised across them. Policymakers have a responsibility to use high-quality evidence and not just prioritise the data that has been collected and measured (Hindkjaer Madsen, 2024). This implies that while pre-existing data is useful for supplementing policy development or in guiding discussion at community consultation stages, policy development should be guided by the needs of policy users within their own sub-region, as each comes with its own challenges.

Researchers and policy makers also need to be aware of the constraints of bounded rationality. For example, where a pre-existing policy solution has drawn some successful results, there is the temptation to adopt this policy and apply it at the sub-regional level, as this seems the rational thing to do. But the confines of bounded rationality may inhibit an appropriate cost-benefit analysis at the sub-regional level. This may even tether into lesson drawing and striving for ‘rational’ policy decisions, which comes with its own challenges (see James and Lodge, 2003).

Deliberation over the types of policies that are most successful has centred on a trade-off between intense and specific policy solutions, where intense policies represent a measure of a policy’s overall design and specific policies focus on targeted objectives (Sewerin, Fesenfeld and Schmidt, 2023). For example, an intense policy in the context of our research on female entrepreneurship may include a recommendation of increasing funding pots to local entrepreneurs by £5 million. In contrast, a specific policy may recommend a funding pot targeted at a specific sector, boarded and jointly managed by local stakeholder groups to increase ownership and input to such an initiative. The advantage of a specific policy is that they can be replaced by equally specific and intense policies, especially at sub-regional level with local stakeholder, actor and community buy-in.

Sub-regional to sub-regional policy transfer and learnings

Policy failure may be encouraged by uninformed, incomplete and inappropriate transfer, a point made clear by Dolowitz and March (2002). Whilst they reference case studies of policy transfer between countries, similar reflections are relevant for UK sub-regional policy transfer. Indeed, Keating, Cairney and Hepburn (2012) demonstrate that the policies may be borrowed across the devolved nations simply because of weak policy development capacity in devolved governments. This reflection is important when applied to the devolved authorities across the Yorkshire region.

While it may be likely that York and North Yorkshire may have more in common with Leeds, Hull and Sheffield compared to London, each region has its own ecosystem that is a collection of smaller eco-systems. Within York and North Yorkshire alone, a challenge of policy development is the diversity within it. It boasts a coastline, rurality, market towns and a historic city to boot, but each bring their own set of policies for the female entrepreneurs within them. While we can look to neighbouring policy as a starting point and aim for joint initiatives across the Yorkshire region, this needs further thinking to ‘embed mobility’ into policy (Peck, 2011).

At a minimum, it requires the workshopping of solutions identified in one sub-region to another and naturally, some form of abductive data collection or knowledge exchange.

While recognising the significance of collaborating with neighbouring sub-regions for policy development – facilitating lessons learned, establishing common starting points, and sharing resources – it’s crucial to balance this with the implementation of place-based policies. These policies should respect and preserve the unique diversity within the Yorkshire and Humber region.

Y-PERN Briefing Note: What can we learn from the international evidence on devolution?

In this briefing, Dr Neil Barnett (Y-PERN Policy Fellow for Yorkshire & Humber Councils) takes a broad look at the international trend towards devolving powers to regions and the evidence for its overall benefit.

In recent decades, there has been an international trend towards devolving powers or duties to sub-national tiers of government as best practice, promoted by a range of bodies such as the IMF, World Bank, and OECD, the EU, and influential think tanks.

The review of evidence reveals a number of key themes which shape current understanding of devolution to regional and sub-regional bodies. These include whether it ‘works’, what are its diverse effects, how we can capture and understand its beneficial outcomes (both in economic terms and the well-being of citizens), and does it enhance democracy?

Our review indicates that the evidence reviewed is contradictory, and is based on differing methodological approaches and focus. This means a definitive answer to each of the questions above is not possible, with a more concise answer being – ‘it depends’. The evidence is often circumstantial, meaning it is difficult to establish a firm relationship between any particular scale of governance and outcomes.

Assessing the effects of devolution is thus dependant on a series of questions, including: what form does it take? where and when is it taking place and why? and who is involved and how do they interact?

Treating international ‘lessons’ with caution

(1) What is studied differs; sometimes it is regions and sub-regions, which can cover widely differing geographical sizes and populations, and at other times cities or metropolitan areas.

Importantly, a variety of methodologies are applied to different countries, even if selected as ‘similar’ for comparison purposes. Furthermore, ‘similar’ countries such as those across the OECD and the EU have differing constitutional, political, economic and social histories and contemporary contexts. This raises the question; where we are looking and what are the most appropriate international comparator case studies?

(2) The terminology differs both in terms of how different sub-state geographies are described and the multilevel (re)distribution of governmental powers in different international case studies.

International literature most commonly focuses on decentralisation of administrative, fiscal, and political powers. Pike et. al, provide a helpful ‘sliding scale’ or ‘spectrum’ of decentralisationⁱ:

In the UK, the term ‘devolution’ has been attached to the agenda of sub-national re-organisation. The scale of decentralisation is strongly connected to when the UK government has sought to undertake reform.

Since the late 1990s, ‘asymmetric devolution’ has seen full control over a diverse range of policy areas, and some legislative, welfare, and fiscal powers, to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and to a lesser extent the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In England, the creation of a piecemeal patchwork of sub-regional Combined Authorities since 2010 is more closely aligned to political decentralisation.

This raises questions as to the overarching intention of decentralisation in the UK and why does the initiative exist?

(3) Decentralisation, then, occurs to varying degrees in different states (including the UK).

In practice, it is rare for there to be ‘full’ (federal or confederal) devolution, or self-rule; more often we see shared rule. Measuring these varying degrees means that proxy measures of devolved or autonomous powers have to be used. Whilst these have become quite sophisticated (see for example the Local Autonomy Index (LAI)) they inevitably involve some degree of subjectivity.

(4) In reality, in most states there are several levels of sub-national governance. The specifics of place and geography are key, meaning that ‘lessons’ from other international contexts are limited in value.

In the UK, devolved sub-state Multi-Level Governance (MLG) systems are highly complex and irregular, and do not function in strict hierarchical, scaler fashion.

For example, Combined Authorities (CAs) in England, interact with local authorities and other organisations at a variety of scales. While each hold some decentralised powers, these are not consistent in their distribution, and CAs are dependent on other levels of government for implementation. Much depends on the actual practices of inter-level relationships, requiring fine grained knowledge not just of formal structures but of informal relationships; highlighting the importance of understanding who is involved, at what level of government, and how they interact.

What do we know? Impacts of decentralisation in different policy areas

Research on specific policy areas underlines the importance of recognising the caveats outlined above, but we can also find some valuable ‘take-aways’ from reviewing international evidence:

The Economy: With respect to economic growth, impacts of decentralisation depend on its form, and context and purpose of reform. The relative state of the macro or ‘national’ economy however is key. This noted, once popular assumptions about cities being ‘engines of growth’ have been superseded by place-based ‘polycentric’ approaches which recognise the importance of multi-level institutional arrangements, and wider inter-relationships of cities, towns and rural areas. Moreover, it is clear that the particular combinations of administrative, fiscal and political decentralisation are important in terms of whether they complement each other, or not, in particular places.
Productivity & Inequality: There is some evidence of positive impacts on productivity of decentralisation to areas with an over-arching geographical co-ordinating capacity, but also a lack of clarity as to what scale this should cover. Contradictory impacts are found on inequality, where degrees of autonomy have been found to increase, and at other times decrease, spatial disparities. Effects on the delivery of a range of public services are similarly mixed.
Health: Impacts on health have proven hard to isolate from inter-related social, economic and cultural factors, and, as in other policy areas, causality is hard to prove. Again, the importance of context, pre-existing conditions, and complementarities between policy interventions is evident.
Democracy: There is surprisingly little explicit evidence of the democratic impacts. Intuitively, decentralised units should bring power ‘closer’ to people and stimulate greater democratic engagement and participation. Most evidence refers, though, to local government (i.e., below sub-regional level), and is largely inconclusive.

Place, Institutional arrangements and ‘quality of governance’ matter.

Having been presented with a lengthy and complex range of evidence, it is possible to state that ‘the Jury’ is not only out but is most likely confused. Sifting through international evidence is not wholly a frustrating exercise though; there are some broad but clear messages.

Firstly, although we can’t assign benefits clearly to particular scales, we can state that it is the mix that matters. Decentralisation takes a variety of forms and it is the place-specific complementarities, or disjunctures, which produce positive and negative effects.

Secondly, ‘place-based’ approaches are necessary but should not been seen to be in strict dichotomy with wider, national, distributional ones. The evidence points implies that decentralisation should take place within a coherent national policy framework (both across England and the UK), with sufficient freedoms and flexibilities at sub-state national level to allow for local knowledge to be utilised and for place-sensitive policies to emerge within an overarching institutional framework.

Thirdly, following on form this, in all of the policy areas above, it is clear that institutions and the quality of governance are key influences. Both terms have formal definitions but also refer to a wider range of relationship-based practices and networks of interactions. Institutional settings provide the support, legal frameworks, rules, norms and conditions of behaviour of everyday practices which make the complex environment of MLG function or otherwise.

Getting the right ‘fit’ of these things is dependent on political and cultural settings, along with historical legacies left by previous reforms (as is clear in the complex governance system in Yorkshire, and Humber for example). There is need to also acknowledge that devolution in itself is not a panacea, and its processes and overarching purpose need to be worked at and allowed to evolve with regards to what, where, when, why, who, and how. Reviewing the international literature therefore emphasises a need to focus on practices in actual settings, and towards behaviours and agency of the actors involved in devolution across Yorkshire and Humber.

Next Steps

Further briefings on the evolving evidence in the UK and related issues of local governance in the Yorkshire & the Humber region are to follow.

Photo by Lewis Ashton: https://www.pexels.com/photo/aerial-view-of-the-staithes-harbour-north-yorkshire-england-10413677/

Understanding alternative approaches to regional economic development in Yorkshire & the Humber

The best way approach to regional economic development is still a matter for debate and research, says Dr Richard Crisp from the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University.

Enduring social and spatial inequalities are seeing policymakers across Yorkshire and the Humber grapple with new ways of tackling old problems in recent years. The Doncaster Economic Strategy 2030 launched in January 2023, for example, places the wellbeing economy at the heart of its approach, while also nodding to inclusive growth, community wealth building and the foundational economy as guiding frameworks.

Elsewhere, Leeds City Council’s Inclusive Growth Leeds 2023-2030 strategy champions community wealth building through its Leeds Anchors network which encourages some of city’s largest organisations to employ local people and procure local services.

This accelerating interest in ‘alternative’ approaches to economic development shows a new willingness among local policymakers to experiment and innovate to improve the lives of residents and strengthen communities. A key driver is growing concern that longstanding ‘traditional’ approaches such as promoting growth in high-value ‘tradeable’ sectors have done little to tackle disadvantage or reverse environmental degradation.

“Y-PERN will play a key role in exploring how alternative approaches to regional economic development are being adopted and implemented across the region, and what outcomes and impact is being achieved.”
Dr Rich Crisp

The emergence of alternative approaches creates a complex policy space as different frameworks vie for attention or are combined in a ‘pick and mix’ approach. This is particularly the case in England which lacks the strategic national steer provided by the devolved governments in Wales and Scotland.

For example, the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government 2023 to 2024 outlines commitments to a wellbeing economy and community wealth building. Preparations for a Community Wealth Building Bill and a Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill are also under way.

How then are we to make sense of these approaches and their deployment in a fragmented landscape of governance in England, with local authorities and combined authorities – where they exist – all doing things differently? What are the distinctive features of these approaches, how they are being put into practice, and what impact are they having?

A team of academics from universities across the UK explored some of these questions in a recent paper which reviews five of the most commonly implemented approaches, as highlighted in the table below.

An overview of five ‘alternative’ approaches to economic development

Our analysis of cornerstone texts and core strategic documents highlights key differences in the visions set out, the mechanisms to drive change, and the geographic scales and challenges the approaches respond to.

Wellbeing economy and doughnut economics are the two approaches which most clearly articulate a vision of the “good life”, often underpinned by an outcomes frameworks to measure progress. In terms of mechanisms for change, there is a common concern for democratic participation, but also marked differences in terms of prescriptiveness with community wealth building offering the most defined set of principles and tools (e.g. progressive procurement and plural ownership of the economy). With respect to geographic scale, there is rarely clarity on the geographic disparities to be addressed (aside from community wealth building), despite the mobilisation of these approaches by many local authorities.

Our paper identifies key gaps in current knowledge. Advocates claim these approaches can generate transformative economic change. However, we still know little about how they are being understood, adopted and implemented in different places. A lack of evaluation also means evidence on the outcomes and impact of initiatives is also scarce.

To address some of these gaps, the research team are undertaking workshops with stakeholders in Sheffield as well as Birmingham, Cardiff, and Glasgow to gain insight into the experiences, challenges and outcomes of deploying alternative approaches. Due to report in Spring 2024, we hope our work sheds some light on this complex and fragmented policy terrain.

That said, the more recent emergence of further alternative approaches in both academic and policy circles such as degrowth or postgrowth, the circular economy and regenerative economies suggests there is little prospect that the current flux will settle anytime soon.

Y-PERN will play a key role in surveying and clarifying this complex policy terrain by working with academic and policy partners to explore how alternative approaches are being adopted and implemented across the region, and what outcomes and impact is being achieved. Y-PERN provides an ideal platform for sharing learning and good practice from across and beyond the region. This will sharpen understanding around the potential for alternative approaches to support more inclusive and sustainable economies and places.

Richard Crisp is a researcher at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University. He specialises in research on inclusive and sustainable economies, ‘alternative’ approaches to economic development, poverty, worklessness, and social and spatial inequalities.

Reference and credit for full paper referred to in this blog:

Crisp, R., Waite, D., Green, A., Hughes, C., Lupton, R., MacKinnon, D. and Pike, A. (2023) ‘Beyond GDP’ in cities: assessing alternative approaches to urban economic development. Urban Studies, OnlineFirst. Copyright © 2023 (Crisp, R., Waite, D., Green, A., Hughes, C., Lupton, R., MacKinnon, D. and Pike, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980231187884

Image by Freepik