Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Demanding growth: why the UK needs a recovery plan based on growth and innovation

By James Meadway and Juan Mateos-Garcia


Recovery from the recession will require an imaginative approach from government. Traditional intervention policies have sought to prop up old industries. But such short-term fixes will not produce long-term growth. Instead, government policy should focus on innovation and growth, supporting innovative sectors that have the potential for strong growth once the recovery begins. It is a move away from corrective intervention towards creative intervention.\ud \ud Acting decisively and intelligently is necessary to transform an economy that had become unduly reliant on financial services. This is not about a return to post-war industrial policy, where government tried to ‘pick winners'. Rather it is about being willing to create the conditions in which innovation can flourish.\ud \ud These conditions will include the development of networks and may mean a degree of cooperation rather than competition initially. There are good examples of where such a policy has worked. The Finnish telecommunications industry, including Nokia, grew from a national economic strategy developed in the recession which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. In Britain, defence equipment is developed through a planned market approach which helps to develop the latest military hardware. Even the growth of Silicon Valley as the hub of international IT was partly a spin-off from the subsidised American defence industries.\ud \ud Our response to the recession should not seek to build national champions. But it should support new areas of emerging demand, where important long-term trends are giving rise to new markets. Three areas for potential growth are especially promising: the green economy; creative industries; and healthcare, including services for an ageing society and biotechnology.\ud \ud NESTA believes that these are all areas of high future demand, significant existing strengths, and strong technological changes. The green economy and healthcare could have a combined market size of £93 billion by 2013, with the creative industries alone contributing £85 billion to GDP.\ud \ud Success in these areas requires the government to support and empower businesses through a combination of infrastructure development, regulation that actively encourages growth, and the use of government procurement to stimulate demand.\ud \ud Procurement, in particular, is successfully used to support innovative small businesses in countries like South Korea and the United States. Such a recovery plan can deliver good results at relatively low cost, provided it is well-targeted. Upgrading our broadband network would cost a third of the price of a third runway at Heathrow.\ud \ud Carefully targeting existing funding would transform the environment for industries in the three targeted areas. In the Appendix, we show how a very specific targeting at one creative industry, videogames, could help create new jobs with extra investment, tax credits and education, at an extra cost of just over £15 million. We estimate that this sort of support, across the creative industries, could help create over 100,000 new jobs by 2013

Topics: L100 Economics, N215 Change and Innovation
Publisher: NESTA
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2009). 3m to fund ‘UK Centre for Computer Games Excellence’
  2. (2007). a 1 per cent increase in UK Renewables Obligation prices increases renewable adoption by 1.5 per cent; a 1 per cent increase in German ‘feed-in tariff’ prices increases renewables adoption by 3.9 per
  3. A conservative estimate based on a limited definition of the sector. Recent analysis by BERR suggests that a wider definition of the Green Economy could account for a larger market and even more employment – potentially 1,000,000 jobs.
  4. (2006). A Policy for Industrial Champions: from picking winners to fostering excellence and the growth of firms.’
  5. (2008). Attacking the Recession: how innovation can fight the downturn.’
  6. (2002). Cold War Armory: military contracting in Silicon Valley. doi
  7. (2009). Commentary: growth prospects and financial services.’ London: doi
  8. (2007). Demanding Innovation: lead markets, public procurement and innovation.’ doi
  9. (2009). Digital Britain: interim report.’ London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Endnotes 16 Demanding Growth: Why the UK needs a recovery plan based on growth and innovation
  10. (2006). DTI Occasional Paper No.6: Innovation in the UK: indicators and insights.’ doi
  11. (1999). Embracing Defeat: Japan in the wake of World War doi
  12. (2008). example, Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Hugo Young Memorial Lecture,
  13. (2007). example, Lord Sainsbury
  14. (2003). example, the remarks of Stephen Byers, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the American Chamber of Conference,
  15. Figures from French Ministry of Culture and Communications.
  16. (1989). Flexible specialisation and the competitive failure of British manufacturing. doi
  17. (2009). For example, in the last year the R&D spending of the US S&P 500 declined 13 per cent.
  18. For example, Manchester Independent Economic Review (forthcoming) ‘Inward Investment in
  19. (2008). Games Impact, Part 3: looking at the indirect economic influence of the UK games industry.’ Oxford: Oxford Economics. Available at:
  20. (2008). Games UP? Brief No.5: Growing the Economic Contribution of the Industry.’ London: Games UP?
  21. (2009). Getting Up To Speed: making super-fast broadband a reality.’
  22. (2008). Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2008-2012.’
  23. (2008). Glover Review International Workstream.’
  24. (1981). Industrial policies in Britain,
  25. (2004). Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century.’ doi
  26. (2007). Innovation in UK Cities.’
  27. (1986). Lead Users: a source of novel product concepts. doi
  28. (2008). Level Up - Building a Stronger Games Sector.’
  29. (2013). Market size and turnover figures not available, but NESTA estimates a contribution to GDP from the creative industries of £85 billion by
  30. (1998). Our Competitive Future: building the knowledge-driven economy.’ doi
  31. (2003). Picking Winners? From technology catch-up to the space race in Japan.’ doi
  32. (2008). Raise the Game Report.’ Available at:
  33. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition doi
  34. (1999). Renewable Energy Policy Outside the United States.’ Issue Brief #14. Washington, DC: Renewable Energy Policy Project,
  35. (2006). Secrets of the World’s Largest Seed Capital Fund.’ Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Business Research.
  36. (1999). Sources of Industrial Leadership: studies of seven industries.’ Cambridge: doi
  37. (2008). The costs of deploying fibre-based nextgeneration broadband infrastructure: final report for the Broadband Stakeholders Group.’ London: Broadband Stakeholders Group.
  38. (2008). The Failure of Market Failure: towards a 21st century Keynesianism.’
  39. (2006). The Firm as a Collaborative Community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy.’ Oxford: doi
  40. (1999). The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: interactions amongst organisational, scientific and institutional change. doi
  41. (2005). The Trillion Dollar Challenge: principles for profitable convergence.’ London: Deloitte and Touche. doi
  42. (2002). This figure from £22 billion market health spend, plus estimate for growth in NHS budget to 2013, and using estimated current use of NHS budget by the elderly to scale figure. Taken from Wanless,
  43. (2008). Total Innovation: Why harnessing the hidden innovation in high-technology sectors is crucial to retaining the UK’s innovation edge.’
  44. (2001). Transformation of the Finnish Innovation System: a network approach.’
  45. (2007). Transforming Government Procurement.’ London: HM Treasury. doi
  46. (2009). UK gloom risks clouding real picture.’
  47. (2002). UK industrial policy: old tunes on new instruments? doi
  48. (2009). Venture Capital Fundraising Activity Slows in
  49. (2009). World Economic Outlook Update.’ doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.