Philip Monaghan - The no cost way of getting people into work
The ‘perfect storm’ for the UK public sector shows no sign of going away any time soon – spending on frontline services continues to plummet at the very moment demands on these public services continues to rocket - be it welfare support as a generation of school leavers join the dole queue, civil contingencies to protect communities increasingly exposed to weather extremes or infrastructure upgrades to wean the country off our dependency on foreign energy supplies with volatile prices that drive up the cost of living. So are there any ‘big ticket’ interventions the public sector can make to advance more sustainable development as we attempt to recover from the crisis?
Even during an age of austerity with unprecedented spending cuts, the economic footprint of the public sector is huge. Take for instance, local government, each year £42 billion is spent on external contracts alone, the value of local government pension funds last year was £143 billion, and it is estimated that local authorities have £250 billion worth of property.
But is tax-payers money well spent, for instance by simultaneously helping to tackle high levels of youth unemployment whilst delivering frontline public services? I would argue not always.
For starters, we need to re-direct the £143bn of local authority pension funds from investments in big overseas business to local job creation (especially if beneficiaries of this investment were the big banks that caused the global crisis in the first place). To do this, there is a need to make it much easier for local councils to access their own municipal pension funds for local regeneration schemes. To be clear this is not a loan, but rather a redirection of pension investments, so it won’t cost an extra penny. It is legal to do so already, yet this practice is uncommon due to regulatory red-tape and a lack of awareness and competency. We not only need UK government to make it clear that this is possible but that it is expected, and as such will be monitored.
Crucially, this money could be invested in a way that prevents a significant amount of GDP leaving an area and decarbonises the local economy too, whilst stimulating job creation amongst the youth unemployed at the same time.
A new study by the Centre for Low Carbon Futures shows that UK cities such as the Leeds city region (which has an economy worth £54 billion a year and an energy bill of £5.4 billion a year) could cut their costs by billions through exploiting commercially attractive opportunities in energy and carbon management. Increased energy efficiencies could be made in homes, public and commercial buildings, as well as to industry and transport, which would pay for themselves in commercial terms in just 4 years. The study concludes that by 2022 an area such as the Leeds city region, by investing 1% of GDP for 10 years, would typically lead to cuts in the energy bill worth 1.6% of GDP every year (and cut emissions based on 1990 levels by 35%). Crucially this would also create jobs, improve energy security and tackle fuel poverty. So for instance, for £1 billion spent on investment in low carbon options would generate £220 million of cost savings and create 1,000 new jobs and wider economic benefits of a further £50 million per year.
Leeds is not alone in striving to find innovative ways to make the transition to a greener and more prosperous economy whilst dealing with savage spending cuts. Local authorities up and down the country are also taking great strides in this regard, ranging from electric vehicle infrastructure in Newcastle to decentralised energy networks in Lambeth.
But the Government needs to more to provide more to help these local authorities achieve even more, beginning with unlocking the use of municipal pension funds. By recalibrating aspects of our current economic model in this way it both boosts local resilience and enhances our nation’s sustainability.
Philip Monaghan is founder & CEO of Infrangilis. He is a writer and strategist in the fields of economic development and environmental sustainability and the acclaimed author Sustainability in Austerity (2010). Philip’s new book How Local Resilience Creates Sustainable Societies published in February 2012 by Routledge and has won praise from respected commentators at the United Nations, Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, Co-operatives UK and the Association for Public Service Excellence, amongst others.
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.




















Comments
on 26 April 2012, 10:58:37 AM
It depends on what you mean by a 'subsidy' for low carbon transport. If you mean upfront money that has no return on this investment, then no. If there is a quantifiable and attractive return, then yes. The latter being the my main point. What type of revenue spend did you have in mind?
Warm regards
Philip
on 21 April 2012, 2:09:13 PM
on 16 April 2012, 1:40:43 PM
Thanks for the positive response. I will certainly checkout the Harvard reference.
I think however it's important not to confuse having a 'stake' with 'conflict of interest'. Using local pension funds to invest in national projects may mean, for instance, money from Liverpool being invested in London. Surely it's more desirable for Liverpool to invest locally if there is strong business case? Or indeed a mix of both local and national ones?
I do agree with the wider thrust of the point though, that we need to have checks and balances in place to ensure that money is invested wisely.
Warm regards
Philip
on 13 April 2012, 11:04:30 AM
There's a clear conflict of interests what if a project will generate jobs and make the current council administration look good, but will turn out (probably a few years later) to be a dud investment? Local authority pensioners suffer, but councillors get a popularity boost in the here and now.
Maybe we could tweak this by invest in these kind of opportunities in *other* local authority areas - the conflict between political goals and financial ones won't exist, but the benefits (more employment, less CO2) would presumably be the same. Perhaps some bright spark could set up a UK-wide carbon-reduction fund that LAs could invest into?
There's actually some evidence on all this. Harvard's Josh Lerner looked at the performance of sovereign wealth fund's investments. It turned out they were less good at investing in their home countries than aboard, even though they presumably know their home market better. The likely reason is that when it comes to local investment, delusions of grandeur take over ("our country *shall* lead the world in biotech!") but when foreign businesses are concerned, the funds look more honestly at whether or not they're good investments.
Leave a comment