In a new series of blogs, we will be reviewing the current and historical work of City-REDI.
In the latest blog, we look at Professor Anne Green’s work with Andy Pike and Shona Duncan on the advantages and disadvantages of concentrating versus spreading public funding across different geographical areas.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, and Sheffield, as well as the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics.
Context & Purpose
The UK continues to face significant regional inequalities in wealth, opportunity, and public investment. Addressing these disparities is a priority for the current UK government, but doing so effectively demands robust evidence on how public funding is currently distributed—and how it should be improved.
This report, funded by ESRC and MHCLG, investigates the design, distribution, and outcomes of public funding across the UK with a central question: Should we geographically concentrate or spread public investment to reduce inequalities?
Key Themes & Findings
- The Structure of UK Public Funding
The report outlines a fragmented funding ecosystem characterised by short-termism, complex competitive bidding, and unclear regional prioritization. - Concentration vs. Spread
It critically examines whether concentrating resources in high-performing areas accelerates national growth—or whether spreading funds more evenly delivers greater equity and resilience. - Local Capacity and Voice
Many local authorities lack the resources to compete for or utilise funding effectively. The report highlights how capacity-building and devolved decision-making can support more meaningful local impact. - Case-Based Learning
Drawing from case studies across English regions, the report showcases how funding dynamics interact with local institutions, including universities and local councils. - Policy Implications
The research stresses the need to reform allocation mechanisms—not only how much is spent, but how, where, and why.
Key Recommendations
- Move from Competitive to Needs-Based Allocation
Design funding to align with place-based challenges and long-term development goals rather than short-term outputs. - Empower Local Institutions
Equip local governments and community organisations with the capacity and autonomy to direct funding where it matters most. - Coordinate Across Funding Streams
Reduce fragmentation by aligning national, regional, and sector-specific funding under a cohesive strategy. - Revise Evaluation Metrics
Shift away from one-size-fits-all KPIs toward measures that reflect local economic, social and environmental contexts.
Why This Report Matters
This report offers crucial guidance for:
- Policymakers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)
- Local, regional authorities and combined mayoral authorities
- Funding bodies like UKRI
- Local development practitioners and think tanks
It provides clear, evidence-based assessment of issues to be considered for more equitable and effective public investment strategies.
📘 Explore More in the full report.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the authors and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.