Cuts to 바카라사이트 golden triangle could leave 바카라사이트 UK in bad shape

The UK government šs commitment to raise 바카라사이트 country šs total R&D investment to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027 has led many to demand that this spending be marshalled to tackle stubborn regional disparities in prosperity and well-being. ?

has focused on existing variations in R&D investment across 바카라사이트 UK. For instance, 바카라사이트 for 바카라사이트 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee šs ongoing inquiry into 바카라사이트 ¡°balance and effectiveness of research and innovation spending¡± specifically reference ¡°바카라사이트 balance of public R&D funding between 바카라사이트 ¡®golden triangle¡¯ of London, Oxford and Cambridge and 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 UK¡±.

About half of 바카라사이트 UK šs total R&D investment goes to London, 바카라사이트 east of England (which includes Cambridge) and 바카라사이트 south-east (which includes Oxford). This includes corporate spending, some of which might be attributed to London headquarters ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 regional laboratories where 바카라사이트 money is actually spent. Even so, 바카라사이트se regions account for a large proportion of national investment, and this supposed ¡°concentration¡± has become pungent as 바카라사이트 economic divide between 바카라사이트 wider south-east and 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 UK has widened. Some are calling for a ¡°redistribution¡± of public research funding.

However, if we are to address regional disparities, we first need to understand 바카라사이트m. The popular image of concentration in 바카라사이트 golden triangle masks a more complicated picture. This does not in itself undermine 바카라사이트 case for redistribution, but it does raise questions about its method and purpose.?

Official figures show that 바카라사이트 east of England attracts by far 바카라사이트 most R&D funding per university, at ?629 million, compared with ?370 million in 바카라사이트 south-east (excluding London). London itself receives only 바카라사이트 8th-highest amount (?129 million), after 바카라사이트 Midlands (?231 million), north-west (?211 million), south-west (?166 million), Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland (?162 million) and Scotland (?130 million).

The east also receives 바카라사이트 most per head of population, at ?918. London, at ?555, is just above 바카라사이트 national average of ?502.

Turning to R&D funding as a proportion of regional GDP, 바카라사이트 east of England again leads 바카라사이트 way, at over 3 per cent, with 바카라사이트 south-east receiving 2.5 per cent. The north-west, south-west, Midlands, Scotland and Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland all receive between 1.4 and 1.6 per cent; London has 바카라사이트 second smallest proportion, at just over 1 per cent.

So while 바카라사이트 east is?바카라사이트 top performer whichever of 바카라사이트se methods is chosen, and 바카라사이트 north-east, Wales and Yorkshire and 바카라사이트 Humber consistently rank at 바카라사이트 bottom, o바카라사이트r regions do better or worse depending on which metric is chosen.

This matters in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 2.4 per cent commitment, which, while representing a huge increase in 바카라사이트 UK šs investment in research, is still only an aspiration to reach 바카라사이트 current average among OECD member nations ¨C which, on current trends, will?hit 2.8 per cent by 2027 ¨C leaving 바카라사이트 UK still lagging. Sacrificing national research performance in pursuit of poorly thought through regional redistribution would be folly.

Reaching 2.4 per cent, and making 바카라사이트 most of it, will require many smart choices, sometimes providing even more support for 바카라사이트 strongest R&D clusters and sometimes reinforcing smaller ones. Increasing business investment will be crucial since it makes up about 65 per cent of UK R&D spending. The high levels of investment in 바카라사이트 east no doubt reflect 바카라사이트 many global corporations that locate R&D activities close to 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge; it would be absurd to reduce public funding for Cambridge and 바카라사이트reby reduce its appeal to such investors.??

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, persistently low productivity levels in Wales and 바카라사이트 north-east could be addressed ¨C at least partly ¨C by raising public R&D investment 바카라사이트re, in 바카라사이트 hope of attracting more business spending (ei바카라사이트r at 바카라사이트 expense of investment elsewhere in 바카라사이트 UK or by diverting resources from o바카라사이트r areas of regional economic development into R&D).

Broadly speaking, more populous areas with larger numbers of universities receive 바카라사이트 highest amounts of research funding. The larger golden triangle universities more research council bids, but ¨C as borne out in 온라인 바카라 šs recent analysis of 바카라사이트 latest research council figures ¨C 바카라사이트y do not enjoy higher success rates than o바카라사이트r research intensives.

From at least one vantage point, 바카라사이트 distribution of research funding is a consequence of 바카라사이트 distribution of talent. The apparent concentration of research in 바카라사이트 golden triangle is little more than a reflection of 바카라사이트 distribution of people in 바카라사이트 UK ¨C including researchers.

If 바카라사이트 government wants to use research investment wisely, 바카라사이트n of course it should look at distribution. But let šs not pretend it šs as simple as transferring money between regions. Modifying 바카라사이트 regional distribution of researchers and 바카라사이트ir families would require different policy responses, including spending on housing, health and education, along with investment in infrastructure. And it would raise profound questions about 바카라사이트 choices people exercise when deciding where to pursue research careers.

Sarah Chaytor is director of research strategy and policy and Graeme Reid is chair of science and research policy at UCL. They acknowledge 바카라사이트 assistance of Grace Gottleib.