Devolution first: A five-point plan to support local growth and prosperity

Achieving greater economic growth and prosperity is an important national policy aim and is likely to be a key priority for any incoming government. More growth means higher levels of investment, more jobs, increased earnings and additional tax revenue. More prosperity means higher levels of wellbeing, where people can live longer, happier and more fulfilling lives.

Ensuring the opportunities of economic growth and prosperity are widely accessible is also an important policy aim – without greater inclusivity the societal groups that have historically been left behind will continue to be left behind. 

The UK has well-documented growth, prosperity and inclusivity problems. The economy has struggled to reach its pre-financial crisis trajectory. There is evidence of declining life satisfaction and increased concerns about health outcomes. Income inequality, the gender wage gap and geographic imbalances point to multiple barriers to inclusion. 

These are some of the most important public policy issues facing the country ahead of a general election in 2024. 

Most political parties have expressed the view that councils are crucial to addressing the growth, prosperity and inclusivity problems. The potential prize is significant. If those council areas with below median growth in GDP per head in the period 1998-2021 had instead matched the median growth rate across all councils, it would mean England generating an additional £73 billion in GDP today. 

Measuring local growth and prosperity 

All growth and prosperity is created locally. National GDP statistics reflect the sum total of the decisions, processes, and ideas taking place in every community across the country. A feeling of prosperity is often related to local conditions, such as whether people feel safe or whether they can access life-enhancing services, such as healthcare and childcare.     

Published data provides insight into how different council areas experience growth over time:

• The large majority of council areas experience growth in GDP per head. Nine in 10 council areas in England recorded a rise in GDP per head in the period 1998-2021.  
• The council areas with the highest GDP per head are more likely to be in urban areas in London and the South East. Of the 20 councils with the highest GDP per head in 2021, only one had any rural parts; only two were located outside of London and the South East. 
• A council area’s economic performance can change significantly over time. For instance, Broadland in Norfolk was ranked 241 out of 308 for GDP per head in England in 1998; it was ranked 93 out of 308 in 2021. 

Published data also highlights that, despite growth, there are still challenges with inclusivity:

• The council areas that generate the highest GDP per head still have extremely deprived parts. For example, the London boroughs of Westminster, Tower Hamlets and Islington all have very high GDP per head, but parts of these boroughs are still in the most deprived 10 per cent in the country. 
• The very richest council areas are growing at a faster rate than all other council areas. In 1998, average GDP per head in the 10 per cent of poorest council areas was 28.4 per cent that of the 10 per cent of richest council areas. By 2021, this figure had dropped to 24.6 per cent.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles data on the concept of prosperity, including measuring local wellbeing. It shows that:

• The council areas with the highest life satisfaction scores do not correlate with the council areas with the highest GDP per head. Only two councils are ranked in the of the top 30 for GDP per head and for life satisfaction. Moreover, 26 of the 30 councils with the highest GDP per head are purely urban areas; only 11 of the 30 councils with the highest life satisfaction scores are. 

While the above data offers some insight, there are still gaps in our understanding of prosperity. Moreover, how people view prosperity – and what is needed for it to increase – differs from place to place. 

Roles and responsibilities for local growth and prosperity 

Every tier of government can influence how growth and prosperity occurs, but local and national government have different roles and responsibilities.

Central government - laying the foundation for growth and prosperity 

In very broad terms, central government uses three types of levers to influence growth and prosperity:   

• Tax and spend. Fiscal power is centrally concentrated in the UK. This means central government largely decides who pays tax, how much they are taxed and how much spending each Whitehall department can undertake.    
• Regulatory regimes. Regulators can encourage or deter activity through the rules and guidance they set. It is ultimately central government that sets the objectives and statutory duties of regulators.
• Policy direction. Strategies are published to explain central government’s vision for growth and prosperity. These strategies are then codified into the objectives of Whitehall Departments. 

Of course, there are different approaches for how to use the above levers to deliver growth and prosperity (as demonstrated by recent debates between and within political parties about how to catalyse growth). 

Local government - adding value to growth and prosperity

In equally broad terms, councils also use three types of lever to influence growth and prosperity: 

• Policy design and delivery. One example is local government’s role in building houses. Councils allocate sites in local plans, negotiate social housing and infrastructure contributions from developers, and engage with local communities. Another example is developing skills and employment support programmes tailored to local labour markets. 
• Skills and capabilities. Councils have a variety of skilled professionals – such as those in planning departments or those working to deliver business support – that have detailed local knowledge of the interventions that are necessary to deliver local growth and prosperity. 
• Relationship building. These positive relationships could be with other councils, with residents, with the large private and public sector organisations and between council members and their officers.

Councils produce detailed plans and strategies on how they use these levers. Interventions range from plans to attract inward investors, to support for sectors to adopt new technology, and from increasing the supply of commercial space, to enhancing the natural environment. 

Moreover, councils directly affect growth and prosperity. A total of 1.2 million people are employed in English local authorities, and billions have been spent by councils to make commercial investments in their local economies.

​​​Challenges to supporting local growth and prosperity 

In semi-structured interviews the following issues were raised by those working in economic development roles for councils. 

Policy design and delivery 

• Funding issues and limited powers. Short-term, competitive bid funding does not support the best outcomes for growth- and prosperity-related projects. New powers relating to the built environment and skills are seen as priorities by councils to deliver growth and prosperity. 
• The permanent consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several councils gave examples of potentially significant permanent post-pandemic effects on growth and prosperity but felt that they were yet to be fully understood.  
• The economic fundamentals of an area. Councils have different starting points when trying to influence local growth and prosperity, which heavily influences how they can approach growth and prosperity. 

Skills and Capability 

• Strain on skills and capability in local government. Issues are: increased workloads and new expertise required in local government finance; economic development teams seeing more technical requirements and having new responsibilities; and, staffing shortages in planning departments. 
• The need for expert roles to unlock growth and prosperity. Very specific expertise is often needed to support specific local projects for growth and prosperity, such as property surveying and leasing knowledge. 
• Inclusive growth and prosperity is a specialist subject. Regardless of the varied approaches to inclusive growth that can be taken, somebody with the specific skills to implement an inclusive growth strategy is required. 

Relationships 

• A lack of clarity on local/national roles and responsibilities for growth and prosperity. For example, a Government review of devolution found that a key principle underpinning devolution was to promote local growth with fair distributional outcomes, but this principle is indicative and not explicitly set out.
• Building relationships can take significant amounts of time and resources. Some examples of successful public-private sector partnerships highlighted that success was built up over the course of decades. 
• Political differences can delay or prevent progress. Disagreement with neighbouring authorities could sometimes prevent projects or joint strategies form happening. Although, there are also examples of councils of different political make-ups working to secure growth and prosperity as well. 

A five-point plan to support local growth and prosperity

 The following recommendations set out ideas on how local growth and prosperity can be supported:

1. Government departments should adopt a ‘Devolution First’ principle. This would mean departments using analysis of new policy initiatives to consider the benefits of local government acquiring new policy powers and/or fiscal power to take control of the policy. It would embed a culture of ‘thinking local’ in the UK’s centralised decision-making structures. There is good evidence to suggest that decentralisation can raise growth performance. 
    
2. Clarity on a longer-term approach to funding local growth and prosperity. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee argued that the levelling up policy requires a long-term and strategic funding approach. To an extent, the Government’s Funding Simplification Plan does address some longstanding issues around funding. But more clarity is needed on what period ‘multi-year’ consists of, when the next Spending Review will be to implement it, and if non-MCAs will have access to it. 
    
3. The Office for Local Government (Oflog) should bring together local area expenditure data from other parts from the public sector. Having a complete picture of the local spend of all public sector organisations and the aim of that spend will enable councils to bring partners together to target that resource on shared priorities for the benefit of their communities, as part of their place-shaping role.  
    
4. The Government should offer a Local Skills and Capability Fund. Combined Authorities have access to the ‘Mayoral Capacity Fund’ to boost their capacity and resources as institutions to deliver for their local areas. Something similar should be considered for all councils to boost local growth and prosperity.
    
5. Central Government and Local Government should work together to strengthen their relationship. The objectives of national regulators should take account of local economic conditions. The Levelling Up Advisory Council consists of 12 members, half of which are predominately London based in their work. The membership of the council should better include more voices from a broader geographic area. Local government should work to explain its approach and perspectives to central government. The What Works Centre for Local Growth could create a ‘living document’ on how partnerships and relationships work at a local level. This would enable central government (and other council areas) to learn about how growth and prosperity-generating relationships work and could be applied in their areas. 

Achieving greater economic growth and higher levels of prosperity is an important national policy aim. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) found more growth means higher levels of investment, more jobs, increased earnings and additional tax revenue. More prosperity means better wellbeing, with people living healthier, longer and more fulfilling lives. 

Ensuring the benefits of economic growth and prosperity are felt as widely as possible is also an important policy aim. The Legatum Institute found an ‘inclusive economy’ means opportunity that is accessible to as many people as possible and that can contribute to reducing inequality and poverty. Without inclusive growth and prosperity, the same groups in society will continue to be left behind. 

The UK has a growth, prosperity and inclusivity problem: 

• Low growth. The ONS found in the 15 years after the financial crisis (2008-2022) there were eight years where annual GDP growth was below two per cent; in the 15 years before the financial crisis (1993-2007) there were only two years where annual GDP growth was below two per cent.
• Barriers to prosperity. The ONS found the proportion of UK adults reporting low levels of life satisfaction was 4.6 per cent in 2018 but has risen to 5.8 per cent in 2023. The proportion of UK adults who were satisfied with their health has declined from 51.4 per cent in 2015/16 to 44.7 per cent in 2022/23.
• Barriers to inclusion. Some examples are: the incomes of lower earning households stagnating while the incomes of higher earning households accelerate; women typically earning less than men, with the gender wage gap widening after the birth of a first child; and, London’s economy significantly outperforming all other areas of the UK.

All growth and prosperity is created locally one way or another. National GDP statistics reflect the sum total of decisions, processes, ideas and activity taking place in every community across the country. Prosperity is often related to local conditions, such as whether people feel safe and whether they can access the vital services that they need.    

Local growth 

Published statistics paint a picture of how different parts of England experience growth over time:

• The council areas with the highest GDP per head are more likely to be in urban areas in London and the South East. Only one of the 20 councils with the highest GDP per head in 2021 was categorised as having any rural parts (West Berkshire); only two were located outside of London and the South East (Three Rivers and Cambridge in the East of England). These statistics reflect the well-established fact that large urban areas – and particularly those around London – are the major drivers of economic activity in England. 
• The large majority of council areas experience growth in GDP per head over time. Nine in 10 council areas in England recorded a rise in GDP per head in the period 1998-2021.  
• A council area’s economic performance can change significantly over time. For instance, Broadland in Norfolk was ranked 241 out of 308 on the measure of GDP per head in England in 1998; it was ranked 93 out of 308 in 2021. On the flipside, Copeland in the North West saw its ranking fall from 95 to 218. Those council areas that improved their rankings the most between 1998-2021 are predominantly urban but are geographically spread across England. 

Each council area can provide examples of activity that has contributed to local growth (although the magnitude of contribution is difficult to establish). For instance, Liverpool City Council rose from 176th in rankings of GDP per head in 1998 to 98th in 2021. Reasons attributed to this growth have been the Liverpool ONE shopping centre, the opening of an Exhibition Centre, the development of the city’s Knowledge Quarter and the growth of the film industry. The success of all of these involved the council to some degree.  

It is also worth noting that the drivers of local growth will change over time. Some industries may decline (such as traditional manufacturing) and others emerge (such as those relating to net zero and digital technology).

Other published statistics also demonstrate why truly inclusive growth is a long way off:

• The council areas that generate the highest GDP per head still have extremely deprived areas within them. For example, the London boroughs of Westminster, Tower Hamlets and Islington all have very high GDP per head, but also have areas that are judged to be in the most deprived 10 per cent in the country, as seen in the 2019 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation. 
• The most prosperous areas in England have parts that struggle to grow. The council areas that saw reductions in GDP per head between 1998-2021 are also in London and the South East. Crawley, Reigate and Banstead, Barking and Dagenham and Hillingdon were the only council areas in England to record annual GDP per head contractions of more than one per cent. 
• The very richest council areas are growing at a faster rate than all other council areas. In 1998, GDP per head in the poorest 10 per cent of council areas was 28.4 per cent that of the 10 per cent richest council areas. By 2021, this figure had dropped to 24.6 per cent. In 1998, GDP per head in those council areas with middling economic performance (those at the 50^th percentile) was 46.1 per cent of the GDP per head of the richest councils. By 2021, this figure was 39.0 per cent. In short, the very richest council areas continue to get relatively richer.   

Local prosperity  

GDP is often used as a proxy for overall living standards. Yet it has a narrow focus on the goods and services produced within the economy. While closely linked, higher GDP does not measure the wide variety of things that contribute to prosperity (such as time spent with family and friends or having access to good healthcare). The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has attempted to measure this broader concept, compiling data that asks people about their wellbeing, including how people experience life satisfaction, happiness and anxiety. While there are some limitations to comparing council areas because of small sample sizes and large confidence intervals, the ONS data provides some useful indicators of local prosperity: 

• The council areas with the highest life satisfaction scores do not correlate with the council areas with the highest GDP per head. Only two council areas have both one of the highest GDP per head and life satisfaction scores (Surrey Heath in the South East and Three Rivers in the East of England). Moreover, the council areas with the highest life satisfaction scores tend to be more rural than councils with the highest GDP per head – 26 of the 30 councils with the highest GDP per head are purely urban areas; only 11 of the 30 councils with the highest life satisfaction scores are.
• The differences in life satisfaction scores across council areas amounts to significant losses to the economy. The local authority with the highest life satisfaction score is over one point higher than the local authority with the lowest life satisfaction score on a scale of 1-10. Higher life satisfaction is a good thing in and of itself, and economists are increasingly trying to value it to include in economic assessments. For instance, a one-number change in life satisfaction on this scale is given an economic value of £13,000 by HM Treasury.

While this data offers some insight, it does not fill all the gaps in our understanding of prosperity. Critically, the indicators do not cover every aspect of what contributes to our wellbeing, nor make any judgement of how those contributions should be weighted.

This is important context to measuring prosperity at a local level. How people view prosperity – and what is needed to increase it – will differ from place to place. For instance, an area with well-below life expectancy may see that as a priority for increasing prosperity; an area that has area of outstanding natural beauty may see protecting its natural environment more important. 

There are two routes to economic growth: boosting the number of people in employment and raising productivity. The ingredients to enhance these routes to growth are widely accepted. They include more effective use of land, the accumulation of capital stock (such as buildings and computers), increasing the labour supply (more people working, or more hours being worked) and technological advancement (such as automation).

There is also a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the routes to greater prosperity by increasing wellbeing. These routes are improvements to our mental and physical health, education and skills levels, personal financial situation, relationships, local area, use of time, and trust in government and institutions.

The effectiveness of the routes to growth and prosperity are affected by factors such as the tax system, the availability and quality of infrastructure, growth-supporting regulatory regimes and strong and stable institutions.

Every tier of government can influence these routes to growth and prosperity, with local and national government having different roles and responsibilities. A specific example is given for housing in Table One, with a broader explanation given in the following sections. 

Table One: Roles and responsibilities of central and local government in the delivery of housing

Central government – laying the foundations for growth and prosperity 

In broad terms, national politicians influence growth and prosperity in three ways:   

• Tax and spend. Fiscal power is centrally concentrated in the UK. The tax proceeds of local growth are rarely retained where they are created. This means central government largely decides who pays tax, how much they pay in tax how much spending each Whitehall department and each council can undertake.    
• Regulatory regimes. Regulators have significant influence over the activity that affects growth and prosperity. For instance: decisions made by OFCOM affect the investment in broadband and mobile networks; decisions made by the Bank of England influence household budgets. It is ultimately central government that sets the objectives and statutory duties of regulators.
• Policy direction. Strategies – such as the Industrial Strategy and Levelling-Up White Paper – are published to explain central government’s vision for growth and prosperity. These strategies are then codified into the objectives of Whitehall Departments, cutting across multiple policy areas, from trade to innovation to infrastructure and to skills. In the case of the current Government, the need to measure and report on progress towards meeting its levelling up missions have been set in law. The methodologies to determine whether the policies to deliver these strategies and objectives are value for taxpayer money are also set by central government.    

Of course, there is significant disagreement about how to use the above powers to deliver growth and prosperity. In the last few years alone the Conservative Party leadership has held widely differing views on how the tax system should be configured to deliver growth. The Labour Party leadership has held widely differing views on how much economic intervention the state should make.

Local government – adding value to growth and prosperity 

In broad terms, local politicians support growth and prosperity in the following ways: 

• Policy design and delivery. One example is local government’s role in building houses. As discussed in in a House of Lords session report, Councils allocate sites in local plans, negotiate social housing and infrastructure contributions from developers, and engage with local communities. Another example seen in the National Association of Local Councils councillor guide is local government’s role in planning maintenance and improvement to the transport network in their areas. 
• Skills and capabilities. Councils have a variety of skilled professionals – such as those working in planning and business support – that have significant local knowledge of the interventions that are more likely to deliver growth and prosperity, as well as the challenges and risks facing growth and prosperity in the area. Each area can highlight growth and prosperity-related projects that had been successfully delivered in recent years. 
• Relationship building. These positive relationships could be with other councils (such as to exchange examples of best practice interventions during the pandemic), with residents (such as using citizens’ assemblies to consult with a broader range of residents), with the large private and public sector organisations (such as to support inward investment into the area) and between council members and their officers (which is needed to deliver projects in a collaborative way). Councils also convene partnerships with central government, other councils, local economic development bodies, anchor institutions, the private sector and regulators – among many other types of stakeholder – to achieve policy aims.

In making these contributions to growth and prosperity, councils produce detailed plans and strategies. For instance, Cornwall Council has a total of 20 documents that are relevant to growth and prosperity, including its Environmental Growth Strategy, Covid-19 Economic Recovery Plan, and Digital Inclusion Strategy. Initiatives range from attracting inward investment to sector-specific support to adopt technology, and from increasing the availability of commercial space to the enhancement of the natural environment. There are examples of these types of initiatives in every council area in the country (see Box One, below). 

It should also be noted that growth and prosperity in one council area can be affected by decisions in another. For instance, the workers that are employed in a city centre will be taken from a much wider geographic area than from just within a city council’s boundaries. In this example, the decisions on housing and transport taken in a local authority area surrounding the city influences productivity within it. Likewise, the opportunities provided by urban centres provides growth and prosperity in towns and villages beyond its administrative borders.

Finally, councils also directly affect local growth and prosperity. In the first quarter of 2023 there were a total of 1.2 million people employed in English local authorities. Billions have been used by councils to make commercial investments in their local economies (as well as the investments made more widely in the UK – and across the world – by the hundreds of billions in assets held by the Local Government Pension Scheme). Equally, councils use local supply chains to buy products and services, further stimulating economic activity.   

Box one: the policy design and delivery of Havering Data Centre

This chapter discusses the challenges faced in supporting local growth and prosperity. The findings from interviews and desk research are grouped according to the three routes through which local government supports growth and prosperity described in the previous chapter.  

Policy design and delivery 

• Funding issues and limited powers. Several interviewees highlighted that short-term, competitive bid funding does not support the delivery of growth- and prosperity-related projects. New powers to enhance the built environment, around land mitigation, building on the greenbelt, and acquiring private land were all referenced. Having complete control over the skills budget was also raised. 
• The permanent consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several councils gave examples of potentially significant permanent post-pandemic effects on growth and prosperity but felt that they were yet to be fully understood. One council highlighted how its city centre economy had been negatively affected with more online shopping harming retail and lower demand for office space. Another council noted that digital connectivity (particularly broadband) in their rural areas had become even more important due to the rise in remote working. 
• The economic fundamentals of an area. Councils have different starting points when trying to influence local growth and prosperity. A high-growth area may attract a large amount of inward investment; a low-growth local area may need to work hard to attract small amounts of inward investment (and perception problems of historically low-growth areas were widely referenced as a barrier to investment). More specifically, councils in less populated regions referenced a lack of local contractors to deliver construction projects (which added to delivery costs). Both rural and urban councils referenced the difficulty in building commercial space when residential developments are more profitable. 

Skills and capability 

• Strain on skills and capability in local government. Strains include: increased workloads and new expertise required in local government finance; economic development teams increasingly seeing technical requirements for business cases and new responsibilities following devolution and LEP reform; and, the well-documented difficulties of recruitment and retention in planning departments. 
• The need for expert roles to unlock growth and prosperity. Several interviewees pointed to specific expertise and knowledge that would support growth and prosperity. One council felt expertise in surveying and leasing of property would be useful so that underused local spaces could be occupied by community groups or workspace providers. Another council felt that knowledge of private sector financial information would benefit them so as to support partnership working with the private organisations. Another council wanted somebody to work specifically on inward investment.
• Inclusive growth and prosperity is a specialism. There are different approaches to inclusive growth and prosperity. For one council, inclusivity was about bringing about internal culture change - getting everybody in the council to think about and recognise the different groups in the locality, which may not typically access services. For another, active travel investment was seen as key to making their area more accessible to more communities. For another it was about ensuring that local influential bodies and organisations were singing from the same hymn sheet and understood how they could influence inclusivity. Regardless of the approach, somebody with the skills to implement an inclusive growth and prosperity strategy was needed. See Box Two for examples of how councils have approached inclusive growth. 

Relationships 

• A lack of clarity on local / national roles and responsibilities for growth and prosperity. An example comes from a review of the Government’s devolution policy. The review found that a primary principle of devolution was to promote local growth with fair distributional outcomes. Yet the review also noted that this principle was indicated and not explicitly set out. This nod to inclusive growth adds to confusion. The Government has signed up to a G20 pledge to support, ‘strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth’, but HM Treasury’s departmental objectives do not mention inclusive growth. Some departmental strategies reference inclusivity (for example, the Department for International Development’s 'Agenda 2030' and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s, 'Creative industries sector vision') and some national regulators have touched on the idea, yet there is no coherence on the issue.  
• Building relationships can take significant amounts of time and resources. Some examples of relationships between different and relevant people can take years to cultivate, with some public-private sector partnerships becoming established over the course of decades. Building these relationships also requires people with strong personalities, skills, and dedication.
• Political differences can delay or prevent progress. Several interviewees mentioned that disagreement with neighbouring authorities could sometimes prevent projects from happening or a joint strategy from being agreed. This could happen in particular when neighbouring authorities were of different political make-ups. Although, it should be noted that there were also examples of councils of different political make-ups working to secure growth and prosperity, including on inward investment and technology and the economy. 

Box two: examples of activities pursued for Inclusive Growth

The following recommendations would boost local growth and prosperity:

1. Government departments should adopt a ‘Devolution First’ principle. This would mean departments using analysis of new policy initiatives to consider the benefits of local government acquiring new policy powers and/or fiscal power to take control of the policy. It would embed a culture of ‘thinking local’ in the UK’s centralised decision-making structures. Future changes to the skills policy is a prime candidate to test the Devolution First principle. It would mean the Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions considering the LGA’s call for devolution of the skills system, giving local leaders the power and funding to work with partners to join up careers advice and guidance, employment, skills, apprenticeships, business support services and outreach in the community. There is good evidence that policy devolution and fiscal devolution – whilst maintaining appropriate redistributive mechanisms between richer and poorer areas – would support growth. One example is a 2013 OECD research paper that found doubling local tax share from 6 per cent to 12 per cent is associated with a GDP per capita increase of around 3 per cent (the UK’s share was around 5 per cent at the time the paper was written). Another example comes from a 2018 OECD research paper that found increasing tax decentralisation by 10 percentage points is associated with around 1.75 per cent higher GDP per capita.
    
2. Clarity on a longer-term approach to funding local growth and prosperity. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee was highly critical of the Government’s approach to funding levelling-up initiatives, arguing that it will be insufficient if, ‘...geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and ultimately, overcome.’ The Committee argued that the policy requires a long-term and strategic funding approach. Indeed, interviewees for this research argued that the long-term nature of some local projects to support growth and prosperity require certainty beyond that of a four or five-year Parliament. To an extent, the Government’s Funding Simplification Plan does address some of these issues, which includes a pilot to test the streamlined delivery of capital funding, a requirement of Departments to strive for simpler and more straightforward funding, and multi-year, single departmental-style funding settlements at the next Spending Review for Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs). Yet it is not clear what period ‘multi-year’ consists of, or when the next Spending Review will be to implement it, and if non-MCAs will have access to it. 
    
3. The Office for Local Government (Oflog) should bring together local area expenditure data from other parts of the public sector. Councils are responsible for shaping their places and need data about their local areas to do so. Oflog should not focus solely on council data but include data about other parts of the public sector, including central government, in each local authority area. Having a complete picture of the local spend of all public sector organisations and the aim of that spend will enable councils to bring partners together to target that resource on shared priorities for the benefit of their communities as part of their place-shaping role.
    
4. Central government should offer a Skills and Capability Fund. Combined Authorities have access to the ‘Mayoral Capacity Fund’ to boost their capacity and resources as institutions to deliver for their local areas. Something similar should be considered for all councils to boost local growth and prosperity. Several interviewees highlighted one area of expertise - specific to local conditions - that could unlock projects that would benefit residents. The Skills and Capability Fund could provide money for the annual salary of one highly skilled individual on a rolling basis. This would work to complement innovative initiatives such as Pathways to Planning, which will recruit up to 30 individuals who will be placed with councils by March 2024. They will work for the council’s planning team alongside studying for an RTPI-accredited Master’s programme.
    
5. Central Government and Local Government should work together to strengthen their relationship. There are several examples of how central government has made efforts to improve its relationship with - and understanding of - economic issues in different parts of the UK (such as Green Book reform and setting up an arm of HMT in Darlington). There are also examples of how national regulators recognise different economic issues in different parts of the UK (such as the Bank of England’s network of regional agents). But more can be done. First, the objectives of national regulators should take account of local economic conditions. For instance, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the UK’s regulator of the financial services industry, has an objective to, 'support competitive and dynamic markets', but nothing by way of recognising local economies, despite regulating firms that invest and are located across the entire country. Second, the Levelling Up Advisory Council – an organisation set up to inform the design and delivery of levelling up policy – consists of 12 members, half of which are predominately London based in their work. The membership of the council should better reflect voices from a broader geographic area. Moreover, local government should work to explain its approach and perspectives to central government. The What Works Centre for Local Growth could create a ‘living document’ on how partnerships and relationships work at a local level. Research interviews referenced numerous different types of partnerships and relationships at a local level - councils working with Freeports, councils working with each other, councils working with anchor institutions etc. The document could set out how different partnerships and relationships work across the country, including governance arrangements, funding and decision-making structures. This would enable more areas to learn about how growth and prosperity-generating relationships work and could be applied in their areas. 

The above recommendations will go some way to supporting councils to deliver greater growth and prosperity. Only then will the billions in unlocked growth and prosperity be realised at a local level.