Levelling up or widening the gap? An analysis of community renewal fund allocation in English regions using an economic resilience index

Datos Bibliográficos

ID7997630
AutoresCarla Camacho (0000-0002-5013-3093, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester, autor de correspondencia), Roger T Webb (0000-0001-8532-2647, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester), Peter Bower (0000-0001-9558-3349, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester), Luke Munford (0000-0003-4540-6744, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester)
Año2023
Volumen10
Número1
Páginas496-505
Fecha de publicación2023-05-02
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaRegional Studies Regional Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2168-1376 • E-ISSN: 2168-1376
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/21681376.2023.2200529
OpenAlexW4367853564
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas12

This paper assesses the relationship between economic resilience in English regions and the allocation of the UK government’s Community Renewal Fund (CRF). The CRF is part of the government’s ‘Levelling Up’ agenda to address place-based inequalities. Economic resilience is measured using a composite index comprising productivity, skills, unemployment, population density and household income. Data were obtained for the five indicators at local authority (LA) level in England. Regional resilience scores were produced by calculating the weighted mean score of the constituent LAs. Regional resilience values were used to generate an ‘expected share’ funding allocation, which was compared with the actual allocation using differences and correlation. Regional resilience scores ranged from 28.5 (North East) to 66.6 (London). A total of £125.56 million was allocated in the first round of the CRF. All regions in the North received less than their expected share allocation of the CRF, with the least resilient region in England (North East) receiving £13.4 million less. The South West received £9.9 million more than their expected share. All regions in the North of England received less than their expected share allocation of the CRF. There was no significant correlation between resilience values and CRF allocations (r = −0.16, p = 0.68). The current method for CRF allocation may therefore widen existing inequalities rather than ‘level up

Demographic economics · Economic growth · Economics · Geography · Government (linguistics · Index (typography · Inequality · North east · Population · Productivity · Psychological resilience · Resilience (materials science · Socioeconomics · Sociology · Unemployment · Demography · Disaster Management and Resilience · Health disparities and outcomes · Psychology · Regional resilience and development