Levelling Up – a double-edged sword?

This post is written by Dr Ruth McAreavey, a Reader in Sociology at Newcastle University.

• The problem: The UK’s Levelling Up funds are fundamentally flawed.

• Why it matters: Public funding has shrunk, Brexit has occurred and replacement funds are being piloted.

• The solution: Create new (and multiple) entry points for communities to access funds, modelled on a community-led local development approach.

Now that the UK is well and truly outside the European Union, replacement EU funds are starting to trickle through, under the auspices of the government’s Levelling Up agenda. Supposedly targeting places that have been ‘left behind’, these funds have been championed as a way of helping communities to improve everyday life across the whole of the UK. They are premised on the idea that some places have not benefited from wealth creation through regular market forces. It is claimed that they will reset the relationship between central and local government, improving opportunities across the country.

As we await the Levelling Up White Paper, already significantly delayed, initial funds have been allocated (in October 2021 through three different streams: Community Renewal, Community Ownership and Levelling Up). These funds were awarded through a competitive process and required certain institutional capacity to participate. Given their role in helping places to prepare for subsequent Shared Prosperity funds, it is worth reflecting on who is likely to benefit and what opportunities for participation exist within local communities.

"Many of the initiatives to be funded through the Levelling Up agenda would, in another era, have been supported through local authority budgets."

A level playing field?

Local authorities play a central role in administering the various funds, particularly projects supported through Levelling Up, which are for physical regeneration and infrastructure building, and many promise to enhance the public realm. For example, projects for town centre regeneration and for sports development (hub, recreation grounds and swimming pool) have been funded. This may seem all very well and good on the face of things, but in fact mightn’t we expect that these projects would be already supported through central government funds?

There is another problem: communities who wish to enact small scale changes in their locality may be unable to tap into these new resources. This could be as mundane as holding a lunch club for their elders or providing space for homework clubs or running nutrition classes to promote healthy eating. If such small scale groups do not have the skills and resources to participate in a competitive bidding process, how can they ever feel the benefits from Levelling Up?

Many of the initiatives to be funded through the Levelling Up agenda would, in another era, have been supported through local authority budgets. Of course, there are opportunities in the Community Renewal Fund that are expected to trickle into grassroots communities. This could reasonably be expected through the projects that have been supported within the community and voluntary sector. For instance, one partnership project within Devon County Council authority will support digital skills development for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations.

Meanwhile, the Community Ownership Fund provides an opportunity for community organisations to take ownership of a community asset that is at risk. It will only accept applications from incorporated organisations, in other words, organisations that have the ‘right maturity’ to manage community assets. This is appropriate for the management of public fund, - it is right that the correct checks and balances are in place to achieve financial probity. But what space does it leave for groups of volunteers who are trying to make a difference at a very small scale within their community?

The bigger picture

At a superficial level, the injection of funding into localities across the UK could be considered a good thing. But the picture is different when set within a context of reduced public expenditure, a sustained period of austerity and the corresponding contraction of local authorities, which has resulted in severe pressure on health and social care as well as a decrease in the delivery of what used to be core services.

The extreme social consequences of austerity have been evidenced through a rise in poverty for people both in and out of work and a fall in life expectancy for women (Marmot’s report). The impact of austerity has had a disproportionate impact on some places, including the North of England and so (according to IPPR) the region’s resilience and capacity for recovery has been significantly reduced. The welfare system is not fit for purpose. Individuals and families relying on it are living a very precarious existence, supported through third sector efforts that attempt to plug the gaps left by government disinvestment. And that is also why there has been such a major increase in food banks in the UK.

Levelling Up is criticised for being an empty concept, filled with political spin. There is a perception that the initial tranche of funds has been allocated for infrastructure projects and that it is remote from local communities. Research has shown how community-led local development works because people feel close to the decision-making process. The initiatives to be funded through Levelling Up promise to create lots of photo opportunities for politicians who are keen to appease the voters.

Research has shown how local authorities are not necessarily the best organisations to help communities develop new initiatives as they often ‘slip’ their projects into a funding pipeline. Local government is not perceived to have the same agenda as the community, and trust between communities and different scales of government has been eroded. Research also reveals how communities with higher levels of social capital, such as well-educated communities, will do much better with local-led development programmes. Accessing Levelling Up funds requires particular skills and expertise within communities to overcome a huge burden of administration.

"Levelling Up is ill-defined and fundamentally flawed. It reinforces a centralised approach to decision making."

Levelling Up by going local

If the UK government wishes to enhance opportunities for people across the UK, reversing the impact of austerity should be the starting point. Alas, that is unlikely to happen. Perhaps an easier step for the government is to afford power to localities to make decisions. This simple, and yet very powerful move, could easily be enacted through the Levelling Up agenda. Creating a programme with multiple entry points where calculated risks are taken so that innovation is encouraged would start to address the gaps in the existing Levelling Up agenda. This would create space for very small scale groups to undertake modest activities with the option to develop more ambitious projects, if they desire. But it would also recognise that getting bigger is not necessarily the ambition for all community-led development groups.

Levelling Up is ill-defined and fundamentally flawed. It reinforces a centralised approach to decision making. Successful community activity relies on local people taking decisions and on trusting relations between government and the people that it serves. The current government has the potential to create innovative funding structures that provide different pathways for meaningful and lasting community involvement. That requires trusting local communities to decide how to spend Levelling Up funds.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)