This book aims to understand the predicaments of 'left behind places' and the scale of the policy challenge of 'levelling up' their economic prosperity. Drawing out lessons of wider international significance, it examines how places (cities, towns and localities) have grown apart over recent decades amidst deindustrialisation, post-industrial transition and the disruptive shocks of the global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. Using the UK case to illustrate its arguments, the analysis identifies the different types of 'left behind places' and their distinctive economic experiences. The key features of urban and regional institutions and policies are reviewed to understand more about why, despite some successes, geographical inequalities remain an entrenched feature of the UK, blighting the life chances and quality of life of its citizens, and national economic progress as a whole. The weaknesses of past policies are highlighted, and the case is made for a new, mission-oriented policy model, because only a radical shift in economic thinking, governance and management is likely to achieve the 'levelling up' that is now a prominent refrain in the political lexicon.

Ron Martin is Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography at the University of Cambridge, UK, and Emeritus Professorial Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, UK. From 2015 to 2020 he was President of the Regional Studies Association. He is also a Research Associate of the Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK. Ron has published some 25 books and more than 275 journal papers on economic geography, regional and urban development, the economic resilience of regions and cities, the geographies of money and finance, and spatial policy. He has undertaken research for the European Commission, the OECD, the UK Government, and national and regional institutions. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a Fellow of the British Academy. In 2016 he was awarded the Royal Geographical Society's Victoria Gold Medal for his 'outstanding contributions to economic geography'. In 2018 he was selected as a 'Highly Cited Researcher' by the Web of Science.

Ben Gardiner is a Director and Chief Operating Officer of Cambridge Econometrics (CE), Cambridge, UK. He holds a Doctorate in Economic Geography from the University of Cambridge. His interests are in regional and city economic growth across Europe, regional productivity, and the economic resilience of regions and cities. He has been involved with several ESRC projects on regional and city economic growth and transformation. For several years, he was a Research Associate in the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, and has also worked for the European Commission (DG JRC-Seville) on their regional 'RHOMOLO Model' of Cohesion Funds.

Andy Pike is the Henry Daysh Professor of Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University, UK. From 2012-2017, he was Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University. His research interests, publications and research projects are focused on the geographical political economy of local, regional and urban development and policy. He has undertaken research projects for the OECD, UN-ILO, European Commission, UK Government and national, regional and local institutions. He is a Fellow of the Regional Studies Association and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.

Peter Sunley is Professor of Economic Geography at the University of Southampton, UK. His research has focused on geographies of labour and labour market policy, business clusters and venture capital, design and creative industries, urban development and resilience, and manufacturing in industrial regions. He is a member of the Research Committee of the Regional Studies Association and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.

Peter Tyler is Emeritus Professor of Urban and Regional Economics at the University of Cambridge, UK, and Emeritus Professorial Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, UK. His research interests cover the economics of regions and cities, regional policy and urban planning, with a special focus on public policy impacts. He has directed over 70 regional and urban research projects for the UK Government, many of which have involved the evaluation of flagship policy programmes. He has also been an Expert Advisor to the OECD, the European Commission, and the UK Government, and in 2016 was Expert Advisor to UN Habitat III. Peter is a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The nature of the problem:

. Geographical inequalities in the UK are a longstanding and persistent problem rooted in deepseated and cumulative processes of local and regional divergence with antecedents in the inter-war years and accelerating since the early 1980s.

. This spatial divergence has been generated by the inability of some places to adapt to the emergence of the post-industrial service and knowledge-based economy whose geographies are very different from those of past heavy industries. As a consequence, the "left behind" problem has become spatially and systemically entrenched.

. Challenging ideas of market-led adjustment, there is little evidence that real cost advantages in Northern areas are correcting and offsetting the geographically differentiated development of skilled labour and human capital and the quality of residential and business environments.

. A variety of different types of "left behind place" exist at different scales, and these types combine common problems with distinctive economic trajectories and varied causes. These different types will need policies that are sensitive and adaptive to their specific problems and potentialities.

. Contemporary economic development is marked by agglomeration in high-skilled and knowledge-intensive activities. Research-based concentrations of high-skilled activity in the UK have been limited and concentrated heavily in parts of London and cities in the Golden Triangle, especially Oxford and Cambridge. Even in London, the benefits have been unevenly spread between boroughs.

. Existing analyses of the predicaments of left behind places present a stark division between rapid growth in "winning" high-skilled cities and relative decline in "losing" areas. This view is problematic because it oversimplifies the experience in the UK and other countries. A false binary distinction is presented to policymakers which offers only the possibility of growth in larger cities and derived spillovers and other compensations elsewhere.

. Yet, the post-industrial economy involves strong dispersal of activity and growth to smaller cities, towns and rural areas. However, this process has been highly selective between local areas and needs to be better understood.

The institutional and policy response:

. Past policies in the UK have lacked recognition of the scale and importance of the left behind problem and committed insufficient resources to its resolution. The objective of achieving a less geographically unequal economy has not been incorporated into mainstream policymaking. When compared with other countries, the UK has taken an overcentralized, "top-down" approach to policy formulation and implementation, often applying "one size fits all" policy measures to different geographical situations.

. Political cycles have underpinned a disruptive churn of institutions and policies. In contrast with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, particularly in Europe, there has been l…