Here’s why you can’t bridge the north/south divide just by moving public sector jobs

Media City, Manchester. Image: Getty.

The question of how to tackle the north/south divide in the UK economy has plagued policy makers for decades. In recent years, attempts to do so have mainly focused on the Northern Powerhouse initiative, which initially aimed to boost Manchester’s economy to create a counterbalance to London, but subsequently broadened out to focusing on strengthening economic performance across the North through improving rail links.

However, to improve the North’s economy, we need to make some hard choices about where to make policy interventions – and this means reverting to a particular focus on Manchester and other big cities.

The Centre for Cities’ recent briefing sets out the role that cities, and city centres in particular, play in the national economy. The big problem for the north is that its cities are punching well below their weight. If the North’s cities were as productive as those in the Greater South East, the North’s economic output would be £154bn larger. That’s three extra economies the size of Manchester.

Clearly then, focusing on boosting growth in cities outside the Greater South East will be critical in improving the economic performance of the North and other regions. The question, therefore is how best to do this.

One of the most direct tools that policy makers can use is to move public sector jobs around the country – as we have seen, for example, with the BBC’s relocation to Salford and the ONS’s move to Newport. This issue is again high on the political agenda, with the government considering moving 800 Channel 4 jobs out of London

But how effective are such relocations – and if the government wants to move Channel 4, where should it go to? In August we published a new briefing looking at the economic impact of public sector relocations, which offers two key findings in response to these questions.

Firstly, a note of caution: our analysis shows that while the BBC’s relocation to Salford has been positive for Greater Manchester in bringing jobs to MediaCityUK, its impact on employment across the wider city region was small – equivalent to a maximum of 0.3 per cent of all the jobs in Greater Manchester in 2016. By extension, the jobs impact of the potential Channel 4 relocation shouldn’t be expected to be very large either.

The analysis also suggests that if the BBC had moved to a smaller city than Manchester – with fewer high-skilled workers and a less diverse economy – it’s likely that the limited employment boost it brought would have been less significant. This leads us on to our second key point: if the government does move Channel 4, it should move the jobs to a major city which is already home to a large-share of high-skilled workers and firms in related industries – in another words, a city like Manchester.


Of course, this raises the issue of fairness. Given that Manchester has already received a great deal of policy focus in recent years – from the BBC’s relocation, to the four rounds of devolution it has enjoyed and the introduction of the new mayor – is it right for Manchester to get Channel 4 too?

The answer, in our view, is probably yes – despite the political difficulties it may bring in terms of Manchester being seen to be prioritised over other cities. Moving Channel 4 to MediaCity would build on a project that was started back in 2011, and would allow it to benefit and expand the existing specialist pool of workers and suppliers that has been created since the BBC’s move – and working with the scale of the city in the way that the ONS’ move to the much smaller city of Newport could not.

Sure, an extra 800 jobs from Channel 4 would be a positive thing for the other cities bidding to be the new station’s new home, such as Birmingham, Liverpool and Sheffield. But the bigger issues for these places is the barriers that for decades have deterred high-skilled businesses from investing in them in sufficient numbers – and which moving Channel 4 would do little to help break down.

To boost growth and prosperity, these cities need many thousands of knowledge-based businesses in many different sectors deciding to set up shop in their economies, creating tens of thousands of new jobs in an emergent way that successful cities foster, rather than through ‘big ticket’ policies. For that to happen, these places need to address the skills and transport issues that hamstring their economies, which should be a higher priority than headline grabbing initiatives such as securing Channel 4.

Birmingham, for example has the highest share of people with no formal qualifications of any city in the UK, and Liverpool doesn’t fare much better. Meanwhile no other city in the UK has a body with Transport for London style powers, despite this being very much in the gift of politicians to change – this too should be a priority for northern cities.

Policy is right to focus on specific places. But it has to be clear on how it is tackling the challenges that each place faces. Looking to give everyone a prize, and being unclear on what an intervention is aiming to do, ultimately doesn’t help very many people.

Paul Swinney is senior economist at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article was first published.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

America's cities can't police their way out of this crisis

Police deployed tear gas during anti-racism demonstrations in Los Angeles over the weekend. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

As protesters took to the streets across the United States over the weekend to express their anger at police killings of unarmed black Americans, it was hard to miss the hypocrisy coming from local authorities – including the otherwise progressive, left-leaning officials who are in power in most major American cities. 

Many US mayors and their police chiefs had issued public statements over the past week that seemed – only briefly, as it turned out – to signal a meaningful shift in the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement is being taken seriously by those who are in a position to enact reforms. 

The sheer depravity of the most recent high-profile killing had left little room for equivocation. George Floyd, 46, died last Monday under the knee of white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, while three additional officers helped to hold Floyd down, doing nothing to aid him as he begged for them to stop and eventually lost consciousness. The officers had been attempting to arrest Floyd on suspicion of having used a counterfeit $20 bill at a deli. All four have since been fired, and Chauvin was arrested Friday on charges of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. 

“The lack of compassion, use of excessive force, or going beyond the scope of the law, doesn’t just tarnish our badge—it tears at the very fabric of race relations in this country,” Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore told the Washington Post in response to the Floyd case. Meanwhile Moore’s boss, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, on Friday claimed that he understood why his city, which is no stranger to police brutality, was protesting. “We absolutely need as a nation, certainly as a city, to voice our outrage, it’s our patriotic duty to not only stand up for George Floyd but for everybody who has been killed unnecessarily, who’s been murdered for the structural racism that we have in our country,” Garcetti said. 

Normally, US police chiefs and mayors tend to ask citizens to withhold judgment on these types of cases until full investigations can be completed. But a 10-minute video recording of Floyd’s killing had made what happened plain. Police chiefs across the country – and even the nation’s largest police union, which is notorious for defending officer abuses – similarly condemned the actions of the Minneapolis officers, in a rare show of moral clarity that, combined with the arrest of Chauvin, offered at least a glimmer of hope that this time things might be different. 

As the events of the weekend have since shown, that glimmer was all too fleeting. 

In city after city over the past three days, US mayors and their police chiefs made a series of the same decisions – starting with the deployment of large, heavily armed riot units – that ultimately escalated violent confrontations between officers and protesters. Images widely shared on social media Saturday and Sunday nights made it clear that members of law enforcement were often initiating the worst of the violence, and appeared to treat protesters as enemy combatants, rather than citizens they were sworn to protect. 


In New York City, two police SUVs were seen plowing into a crowd of protesters, while elsewhere an officer was recorded pulling down a young protester’s coronavirus mask in order to pepper spray his face

In Louisville, the city where Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman was fatally shot by police on 13 March, state police in riot gear were captured confiscating and destroying protesters’ supplies

In Minneapolis, forces opened fire with nonlethal rounds on residential streets, much to the shock of homeowners standing on their own front porches. 

Images of police pushing or shoving peaceful protesters were almost too numerous to count, including, in Salt Lake City, an elderly man with a cane

In many places, police also targeted journalists who were covering the protests, firing at clearly identifiable media crews with rubber bullets, injuring and even arresting reporters

Some protesters did commit acts of vandalism and looting, and the leaders of cities where that happened generally responded in the same ways. 

First, they blamed “outside agitators” for the worst protester behaviour, a claim that harkens all the way back to the civil rights era and for which the evidence is murky at best

Next, they enacted sudden curfews with little to no warning, which gave law enforcement an excuse to make mass arrests, in some cases violently. 

In a pair of widely criticized moves, Garcetti of Los Angeles closed the city’s Covid-19 testing centers and suspended the entire mass transit system Saturday evening, stranding essential workers on their way home from daytime shifts. Late Sunday night in Chicago, the city’s public school system halted its free meal distribution service for low-income children, citing “the evolving nature of activity across the city”.  

Governors in at least 12 US states, in coordination with city leaders, have since called in National Guard troops to “help”. 

At this point it’s clear that the leaders of America’s cities are in desperate need of a radically different playbook to respond to these protests. A heavily armed, militarised response to long-simmering anger toward the heavily armed, militarised approach to American policing is more than ironic – it’s ineffective. Granting police officers wider latitude to make arrests via curfews also seems destined to increase the chances of precisely the tragic, racially biased outcomes to which the protesters are reacting. 

There are other options. In places such as Flint, Michigan, and Camden, New Jersey – both poor cities home to large black populations – local law enforcement officials chose to put down their weapons and march alongside protesters, rather than face off against them. In the case of Camden, that the city was able to avoid violent clashes is in no small part related to the fact that it took the drastic step of disbanding its former police department altogether several years ago, replacing it with an entirely new structure. 

America’s cities are in crisis, in more ways than one. It’s not a coincidence that the country has tipped into chaos following months of emotionally draining stay-at-home orders and job losses that now top 40 million. Low-income Americans of colour have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic’s ravages, and public health officials are already worried about the potential for protests to become Covid-19 super-spreading events.

All of this has of course been spurred on by the US president, who in addition to calling Sunday for mayors and governors to “get tough” on protesters, has made emboldening white nationalists his signature. Notably, Trump didn’t call on officials to get tough on the heavily armed white protesters who stormed the Michigan Capitol building over coronavirus stay-at-home orders just a few weeks ago. 

US mayors and their police chiefs have publicly claimed that they do understand – agree with, even – the anger currently spilling out onto their streets. But as long as they continue to respond to that anger by deploying large numbers of armed and armored law enforcement personnel who do not actually live in the cities they serve, who appear to be more outraged by property damage and verbal insults than by the killings of black Americans at the hands of their peers, and who are enmeshed in a dangerously violent and racist policing culture that perceives itself to be the real victim, it is hard to see how this crisis will improve anytime soon. 

Sommer Mathis is the editor of CityMetric.