Improving public funding allocation to reduce geographical inequalities

This report proposes improved ways to allocate public funding within and between different areas in England to reduce geographical inequalities and enable more places to contribute meaningfully to national economic growth and renewal. It draws on the research of a multi-disciplinary team of academics, researchers and consultants undertaken between June 2024 and March 2025. This research included evidence reviews, international case studies, analysis of spatially targeted funding streams, ‘deep dives’ into specific topics, interviews with policy practitioners, and citizen engagement. Addressing the role of public funding in reducing geographical inequalities in England, the research identified ten guiding principles and ten key problems with incremental, moderate and radical proposals to help resolve them. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

A review of funding allocations in England to address geographical inequalities

This report analyses 48 funding streams in operation in England from 2014 to 2024, for local and regional areas that are either explicitly aimed at addressing geographical inequalities or are likely to have a direct or indirect impact on such inequalities. We explore mechanisms for allocation and delivery. We aim to provide actionable lessons for policy reform to improve funding allocation mechanisms, positively impacting policy, people, and places. Our analysis emphasises the complex nature of the funding landscape. Key findings include that: •A very limited number of funds studied are specifically geographically targeted, with a high proportion of funds allocated to administrative geographic areas. However, where funding has been available to particular kinds of administrative areas, there might still be an implicit/’de facto’ targeting of geographic inequality in the spread of funding to certain administrative areas across urban and rural areas in England. •Whilst the majority of the funds analysed focus on reducing geographical inequalities, only a quarter of the funding provided is targeted at addressing spatial inequalities. Rather, almost three-quarters of the total funding considered is focused on achieving aims that are not geographically specific. •The majority of funds analysed involved competitive processes for allocation, although formula funding made up the greatest proportion of total funding awarded. •Recent years have seen the introduction of multiple, often short-term funding streams. •More than half of the funding programmes analysed had as one of their aims to reduce geographic inequalities or support disadvantaged regions. This would appear to be positive in terms of the potential to address geographical inequalities. However, this only represents 25% of the total funding analysed. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Central-local relations under Labour (2024-): emerging themes and issues in English devolution

The Labour Government elected in July 2024 has now had six months in office. With publication of the Devolution White Paper on 16 December 2024, this is a good moment to assess the direction of travel in the government’s approach to central-local relations (MCHLG, 2024). To summarise, devolutionary elements are welcome but cautious and incremental, while the (potentially) radical elements around reorganisation are not devolutionary. In this respect, the White Paper marks continuity in the British state tradition. The wide-ranging devolution community of interest recognises progress, whilst expressing disappointment at the lack of ambition (https://citizen-network.org/work/local-england). That which is to be welcomed in the White Paper reinforces the change of tone towards local government. The further devolution of functions to city-regions, simplified funding arrangements, multi-year settlements and rollout of new central-local partnership bodies (and the localisation of power to amend byelaws) are all devolutionary measures to empower metro-mayors. Moreover, the White Paper is represented by ministers and sympathetic commentators as a floor, not a ceiling, and the most optimistic commentaries witness the beginning of a more radical shift (Studdert, 9.12.2024). If the White Paper is a floor, the ceiling is neither clear nor near. Endemic features of the centralised British state tradition remain unchallenged and if anything augmented. There is to be no fiscal devolution, though the government is open to the idea of devolving further functions and resources to single settlement authorities. The vision of English local government that emerges is based around the evolution of a bifurcated system of very large Mayoral “strategic” authorities, intended to be growth machines (Molotch, 1976), and enlarged principal authorities charged with public service (mostly social service) delivery. Taken to its conclusion, this new wave of reorganisation will see the abolition of district councils, posing major questions about political and democratic identities and accountabilities. These preoccupations with growth and efficiency seek to amplify and ultimately conclude a pre-existing local state restructuring project, an agenda with arguably centralising overtones expressed in the language of devolutionary ambition. This paper delves into central government messaging in greater depth, focusing on the period since the General Election of July 2024 and concluding with the Devolution White Paper of December 2024. It finds familiar ambiguities and dilemmas in the top-line commitment to devolution redolent in some ways of the New Labour approach, reflecting the endemic centralism in English governance (Rae, 2011). These ambiguities point, above all, to the need to make legible rules, traditions and governmentalities that have long defined central-local relations, and have quickly remerged under the current government. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

The Green Book

The Green Book is a key guidance document used by the UK Government for over half a century to inform the appraisal and evaluation of public investments. This contribution assesses the use of the Green Book in appraising sub-national applications for UK central government funding. It discusses the role of the Green Book in the assessment of sub-national applications for central government funding. It then moves on to examine its strengths and weaknesses, followed by an examination of what may be learnt from international practices of central government appraisals of place-based funding applications. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Advancing justice and inclusion for children born of Conflict-related sexual violence: a rapid evidence assessment

This Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) evaluates the immediate and long-term risks, harms, and challenges faced by Children Born of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CBoCRSV) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Conducted under the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI), the assessment addresses three key research questions: What are the primary risks, harms, and challenges faced by CBoCRSV? What interventions may effectively promote their well-being? How has research in this field evolved? Through the analysis of 289 documents, the findings of this REA reveal that CBoCRSV commonly face severe social stigma and exclusion, affecting their integration within families and communities. Their family dynamics are frequently strained, with limited stable support. They are at higher risk of somatic symptoms, depression, and identity�related challenges, that can lead to long-term psycho-social and developmental harm. Additionally, barriers such as lack of legal documentation, financial constraints, and societal discrimination often restrict their access to education, healthcare, and basic services. Cultural and religious beliefs were also found to exacerbate their marginalisation. Promising interventions include psychological support programmes, legal advocacy, community-based support, and educational and economic inclusion initiatives. However, these remain largely under-evaluated due to a lack of empirical research. Significant gaps in the literature include limited representation of certain regions, a dearth of comparative studies across conflict settings, and insufficient data to capture the intersectional and long-term challenges CBoCRSV face. To address these gaps, the literature calls for targeted action to strengthen participatory approaches that engage survivors and affected communities in policymaking, foster international collaboration to standardise and scale effective interventions, and invest in systematic, ethical research to identify what works. Recommended measures include strengthened legal frameworks, enhanced social support systems, economic inclusion, and improved access to education and healthcare. Together, these efforts aim to create protective environments that reduce risks, foster integration, and promote the rights and well-being of CBoCRS

The UK Creative Industries Public Funding Allocations and Investment Review

The creative industries in the UK are not only the country’s most powerful engines of growth, but also an important source of innovation and welfare development. British creative industries have also been identified as a critical asset to help build and deepen the country’s soft power abroad effectively. On this basis — including other factors that this review explores, the Government has selected the creative industries as one of the eight growth-driving industries in its forthcoming Industrial Strategy scheduled for publication in June 2025. This is significant and informs the three-fold rationale for this review. First, to contextualise and systematically explore public funding allocations to, and investment in, the creative industries between 2015 and 2025. Second, to make five key recommendations to the current Government on future-proofing the economic power and welfare development role of the creative industries in the UK. Third, to contribute to robust policy evidence to inform Government efforts to develop simplified, sustainable, and more efficacious models of public funding allocations and investment to reduce geographical inequalities across the UK in the context of greater and fast-changing devolution arrangements. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Funding local areas: what do the English public think about changes to how funds are allocated to local government? Findings from a citizen engagement workshop

In February 2025, 43 members of the public attended a deliberative workshop in Birmingham to discuss how changes to the way that funds are allocated to local governments could reduce inequalities. This report sets out the findings which emerged from the workshop, drawing on voting exercises and worksheets that participants engaged with throughout the day. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Fiscal federalism

The organisation of responsibilities and finances between different levels of the state is a fundamental task for governments in achieving their political and public policy goals. This arrangement of powers and resources underpins how funding is allocated and distributed between government levels and geographical areas. Fiscal federalism refers to this organisation of responsibilities and funding. It has become increasingly important internationally following the expanded roles of national governments and their policies and funding programmes in responding to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020, and the recent geopolitical disruptions of conflict in Ukraine and the middle east. Fiscal federalism also informs debates about the decentralisation of governance and funding in devolving centralised states including the UK. This review outlines the definition of fiscal federalism, its underlying assumptions, principles of public funding allocation, advantages and disadvantages, before concluding. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Utilisation of funding

There is considerable interest in how funding is allocated to local stakeholders to address spatial inequalities and in the amount of funding that is available where. However, funding comes with rules on how, when, where and on what it can be spent. The focus of this review is on the factors influencing how funding is/ can be used to address local priorities that will address spatial inequalities and associated challenges and opportunities. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics