Mayors love innovation, but they might love the innovation budget more

What one issue is causing research policy people sleepless nights this autumn? There are quite a few candidates to pick from, for sure, but a decent bet is the spectre of mayors getting more control over local innovation funding. This was buried in the detail of the “rewiring the state” policy paper which emerged over the summer, with more detail to come either alongside or – more likely – after the autumn Budget.

Admittedly, plenty of people are strongly in favour of a closer intertwining of research institutions, businesses and local authorities (even if Andy Burnham’s attempt to make “triple helix” sound like a political rallying cry fell flatter than flat). But how exactly is it going to play out, when push comes to shove?

The recent letter from Liverpool mayor Steve Rotheram to the new PM over funding for Daresbury lab ought to give us some clues. On the face of it, there’s much to be thankful for: local leaders want to protect research capacity, they want long-term investment, they want to protect science jobs. This shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Some might feel a mote of concern at politicians trying to subvert UKRI decision-making by writing directly to the boss – for one thing, it’s much easier to do when you are the Prime Minister’s old friend, political ally and former co-author. Regions whose mayor isn’t a close Burnham confidante, or who simply don’t have a mayor to stick up for them, might not want to see this kind of thing catch on.

But all in all, the current state of affairs is quite a comfortable one for the research sector to be in. If your local authority has no power over how research and innovation spending decisions are made, then it can be a useful ally in making representations to central government – or, ideally, to its operationally-independent arm’s length bodies.

This might all be about to change – and then the question on everyone’s lips is what happens if mayors have to make decisions about what gets invested in (easy – everyone loves you) and what does not (less fun).

There are two different worries here. The first is a pretty simple one: whether, if given the power to choose how to spend it, mayoral and local investment in research and innovation would retain its current level, or whether priorities elsewhere (or even the power to grant tax rebates) would see budgets get chipped away at.

The second is more contentious: whether mayoral authorities and the like can really navigate local stakeholder pressure and spend money where it will be best employed, rather than protecting existing facilities and following the lead of those local actors who are able to make their voices heard most stridently and whose sectors line up best with local politics.

We’ll have to see how it all plays out; it could still well end up being the case that mayors’ shiny new powers don’t amount to much. But one occasionally wonders whether research institutions might look back on the current set-up – when local leaders were full-throated cheerleaders who would always agree that you should have more investment and more central government support – and experience a degree of nostalgia. 

Spotted a politician meddling in the research system? Or a blurry line between academia and government? Email the man himself: haldane [at] researchagenda [dot] news