This report draws together evidence from across the Local Policy Innovation Partnership (LPIP) Hub’s extensive programme of evidence reviews, briefings and supporting publications. It asks what becomes visible when evidence on skills, innovation, communities, culture, environment, governance, leadership, data, business cases and partnership working is considered holistically.
It finds that the challenges facing places are deeply interconnected and that successful place-based development depends less on individual policy interventions than on the capabilities, relationships and institutions that enable places to act collectively. It develops a nine-fold Place Capabilities Framework – encompassing governance, organisational, analytical, community, skills, innovation, emotional, leadership and partnership capabilities – connected through trust and operating within a wider context of institutional thickness.
“The most important determinants of place-based policy success and failure are not sector-specific interventions but systemic capabilities.”
Professor Anne Green, City-REDI, University of Birmingham
The most effective investments in place-based development may not be additional thematic programmes but sustained investment in the capabilities – governance capacity, analytical infrastructure, partnership networks, boundary-spanning roles, community engagement, institutional stability – that enable places to design, deliver and sustain effective interventions across all domains.
Key findings
1 – The barriers to place-based development are systemic rather than thematic
Across all LPIP themes, the same challenges recur, including short-term funding, policy churn, fragmented governance, weak analytical capacity, consultant dependency and limited institutional stability. These obstacles appear regardless of whether the focus is skills, innovation, communities, culture or environmental transition.
Key takeaway
Place-based policy should move beyond siloed interventions towards addressing the underlying institutional and governance conditions that support long-term local development. The evidence suggests that many local challenges stem from weaknesses in the system within which policy operates, rather than deficiencies within individual policy domains.
2 – Strong place capabilities help places to succeed
The synthesis identifies a set of interconnected capabilities that underpin successful place-based development. These include governance capability, organisational capability, analytical capability, community capability, skills capability, innovation capability, emotional capability, leadership capability and partnership capability. Trust acts as the connective infrastructure linking these capabilities together.
Key takeaway
Investment should focus not only on projects and programmes but also on strengthening the long-term capabilities of places. Building institutional capacity, community engagement, analytical capability and trusted partnerships may generate benefits across multiple policy domains simultaneously.
3 – Place-based challenges are interconnected and require joined-up responses
Evidence across the LPIP programme demonstrates strong interdependencies between policy domains. Skills influence innovation, innovation affects economic performance, culture shapes identity and belonging, environmental transitions affect communities, and governance influences the effectiveness of all other interventions.
Key takeaway
Mission-based and systems-oriented approaches are more likely to deliver sustainable outcomes than isolated policy interventions. Local strategies should recognise the interactions between economic, social, environmental and cultural dimensions of place.
4 – Trust and relationships are critical development assets
Across every theme, trust emerges as a fundamental enabling condition. Effective partnerships, community engagement, innovation ecosystems, governance arrangements and research collaborations all depend upon strong relationships and sustained collaboration between organisations and communities.
Key takeaway
The people and organisations that connect institutions, communities and sectors should be recognised as essential infrastructure. Funding and policy should explicitly support boundary-spanning, coordination and knowledge-mobilisation activities as core components of place-based development.
5 – Current funding and governance arrangements are often misaligned with local needs
The evidence identifies a persistent mismatch between the long-term nature of place-based change and the short-term, competitive and fragmented funding systems that characterise much public investment. Devolution has expanded responsibilities in many places, but often without corresponding increases in capacity, resources or fiscal autonomy.
Key takeaway
Places require longer-term funding settlements, greater fiscal flexibility, improved data infrastructure and sustained investment in governance and analytical capacity. Effective devolution depends not only on transferring powers but also on strengthening the capability of places to use those powers successfully.
6 – The UK needs a new settlement for place
Taken together, the LPIP evidence base suggests that many of the UK’s place-based challenges arise from structural weaknesses in governance, funding and institutional support. Addressing these problems requires a more integrated approach that combines devolution, capability-building, community engagement, partnership working and long-term investment.
Key takeaway
The evidence points towards the need for a long-term, cross-party commitment to place-based development that prioritises institutional stability, local capability, meaningful community participation and mission-led approaches. The greatest risk is not failure within individual policy domains, but continuing to address interconnected challenges in isolation.
About the author
Professor Anne Green
Anne Green is a Professor of Regional Economic Development and Co-Director of City-REDI at the University of Birmingham. She is a geographer by background and has research interests spanning urban, rural and regional development; employment, non-employment, regional and local labour market issues, and skills strategies; migration and commuting; and associated policy issues and evaluation.