Andy Burnham’s economic pledge to Britain is difficult
One of the remarkable aspects of the UK — a detail that may not stand out to its natives, yet is striking to outsiders — is the postcode. The combination of letters and numbers that identifies a dozen or so adjacent addresses is far more granular than its equivalents elsewhere, reflecting the efficiency of the British state machinery and its capacity to reach every corner of the nation when it endeavours to do so. It serves as a stark reminder of the limited actions taken by the state to tackle stratification and inequality within Britain. The government’s Social Mobility Commission noted in 2020 that individuals were born into a postcode lottery; in certain regions of the country, the disparity in earnings between the affluent and the disadvantaged was 2.5 times greater than in others. When Andy Burnham, almost certainly the UK’s next prime minister, promised in his first major policy speech to deliver “good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart,” he was committing to alter that situation. It is a reasonable objective for the inaugural northerner to occupy No. 10 since Harold Wilson. It is, quite evidently, a mission fraught with impossibility. Not solely due to the fact that a postcode represents an exceptionally small area, but rather because that is not the mechanism of growth, neither in Britain nor in any other part of the globe.
Economic expansion is uneven. Certain sectors, regions, and municipalities forge a novel trajectory toward economic prosperity, prompting others to emulate their example. The transformation is accompanied by the emergence of new urban centers and the migration of individuals towards more vibrant regions of the nation. If growth ignites in England’s North, for example, the towns where it first takes hold will themselves attract outsiders from the South, the Midlands, Scotland, and beyond. Burnham, having served as mayor of Manchester for seven years, a city that has embraced numerous southerners, is likely to have observed this himself. The North, akin to various regions in the West — Northern France, America’s midwestern “rust belt,” and others — perceives itself as neglected amid the economic transformations that have led to its deindustrialisation. It was, after all, the industrial revolution that gave rise to many of its towns in the first instance. Clusters of enterprise and industry emerge as their resources, natural endowments, and geographical locations support the prevailing sectors of the time. The southwest supplied lead and tin to Roman Britain. The Cotswolds and Lincolnshire provided wool a millennium later. Then coal and iron ore brought Blake’s dark Satanic mills to the verdant hills of the Midlands and the North.
However diligent a government may be, it cannot reverse the progression of time and technological advancement. Growth must be inclusive, but of people not places. No individual should be left behind simply because the town of their birth has ceased to be the epicentre of innovation or entrepreneurship. They are entitled to the same state services and opportunities as all others. Yet no one can credibly assure the simultaneous achievement of three objectives: growth, equality, and stasis. Burnham stated, in his significant address, that young individuals “should not have to leave to get on in life.” However, a glance at China, along with the rest of Asia and Europe’s historical context, illustrates that this is precisely the approach taken during periods of economic expansion. The state ought to facilitate the pursuit of aspirations rather than instruct individuals to remain inactive at home. The most significant distinction between regions at the forefront of the economy and those that are not lies in worker productivity. In London, output per employee exceeds the national average by 35 percent. Young individuals ought not to feel confined in environments that solely provide them with lower-productivity, and consequently lower-wage, employment opportunities. They require encouragement, and even assistance, to take action. According to one estimate, nearly 40 percent of wage variation across the country can be attributed to the mobility of young adults who relocated to different areas.
This inward migration benefits both the regions to which individuals relocate, allowing them to continue thriving, and the areas they depart from, which experience an increase in capital per worker, thereby enhancing productivity. This effectively channels private investment into regions that have been historically neglected, provided there is adequate infrastructure and robust local institutions in place. This is how, in the 1960s, northern Belgium surpassed the south of the country, which was once the wealthiest region in Europe. Economic history illustrates that mobility, both geographical and social, is a more significant driver of growth in investment, productivity, and income than any other policy measure. In contrast, attempting to stimulate growth universally and simultaneously presents an insurmountable challenge for any government. England’s north-south divide is not an isolated phenomenon. Italy and Germany have experienced national divides of comparable depth. However, Germany’s investment of approximately €2 trillion into its post-communist eastern regions has not yielded significant results. Regional inequality remains a significant issue. Today’s political leaders ought to refrain from overpromising and underdelivering to regions that have experienced repeated failures. That will fuel a populist takeover, not prevent it.
If the new British government shifts its focus from place to people, it could embody the essence of Burnham’s pledge. The policy responses are well-known: enhancing worker skills, increasing infrastructure investment, providing affordable housing in desirable locations, and improving services in areas that are experiencing outmigration. That does not imply that they are incorrect. True “levelling up” has yet to be attempted. After all, the forthcoming Prime Minister is distinct from previous candidates who have made similar commitments. He hails from the North and represents a region in proximity to his upbringing. Policies designed to assist individuals from marginalised regions in fostering growth in other areas — and revitalising their own communities — have historically fallen short due to a lack of dedicated implementation and insufficient empathetic communication. Consider the perspective of Norman Tebbit as he encourages the unemployed to take initiative and seek opportunities actively. His message underscores the importance of personal responsibility and the proactive pursuit of employment, suggesting that individuals should not wait for jobs to come to them but rather venture out to find them. Burnham’s background suggests that he may have the potential to perform more effectively. No one can guarantee growth for every postcode, but he could provide a sense of justified hope — and that may ultimately prove more significant in the battle against the hollow promises of populism.
