Universities urged to collaborate on regional growth through devolution

Universities now face an opportunity to deepen their economic impact at the local level through devolution, but they must resist the temptation to assume sole responsibility for regional development. The transfer of power from central government to local authorities creates a more stable framework for collaboration, one that recognizes universities as vital assets in community growth. Unlike Whitehall, which frequently shifts priorities, local policymakers consistently value the contributions universities make to their areas.

Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham has repeatedly stressed universities’ importance in driving local economic progress, a stance that gained particular attention amid speculation about his potential future role in national government. For a sector long accustomed to top-down policy changes, devolution offers a chance to align more closely with regional needs. Research by Peter O’Brien, Jane Robinson, and Helen Turner has shown how universities can tailor their strategies to address specific local challenges, though institutions must guard against overestimating their ability to solve complex regional issues alone.

Over the past decade and a half, universities have increasingly positioned themselves as civic leaders, stepping into roles vacated by austerity-weakened local governments. While many have moved beyond the “ivory tower” image, the problems communities face rarely have solutions that can be delivered by a single institution. Effective progress demands collaboration across government bodies, public services, businesses, and residents. Universities can provide expertise, research-based evidence, and sustained commitment, but their most effective contributions may lie in supporting broader efforts rather than leading them.

A partnership model requires universities to step back from dominant positions and instead focus on shared outcomes. The goal should be relationship-building that extends beyond individual projects or funding cycles. This approach contrasts sharply with the civic university model’s historical weakness: a lack of lasting integration into governance structures. Many initiatives depend on individual champions, supportive leadership, or temporary grants, but embedding them into long-term systems remains difficult. A civic agreement is merely the starting point; the real challenge is aligning incentives and priorities to maintain engagement over decades.

The Greater Manchester example demonstrates this dynamic. While Andy Burnham’s leadership often takes center stage, the region’s achievements stem from sustained cooperation among local authorities, businesses, and universities. These institutions succeeded not by dominating discussions but by reinforcing the broader civic framework.

Universities should prioritize deeper local integration and shared influence over visibility. Their most valuable role may be in facilitating collective leadership rather than assuming it. This means committing to the gradual, often unheralded work of building relationships and trust. If devolution delivers lasting benefits, it will be because universities strengthened regional partnerships—not because they led them.

Local authorities, including those in Greater Manchester, have already begun adopting this collaborative mindset. The shift from central control to regional decision-making creates space for universities to contribute meaningfully without overreaching. Their expertise in research, innovation, and long-term planning can address gaps left by austerity, but only if they operate as part of a coordinated network rather than isolated actors. The focus must remain on sustainable, community-driven solutions rather than institutional prominence.