Rethinking growth: Towards the well-being economy

Introduction: Towards the well-being economy?

This article seeks to contribute to a discussion about the economic, social, environmental and cultural desirability of growth. Undertaking a general review of Wales as a case study, it considers alternative approaches to measuring success and the likely policy impact of recent well-being legislation. Supporting the principles of ‘steady state’ economy that permits some degree of responsible, ecologically accountable, limited growth (see Daly, 1973), this article stops short of advocating a blanket application of ‘degrowth’. Although it refutes extractive growth, it suggests that a model of more place-based, socially and ecologically positive and sustainable growth might have beneficial impacts in certain circumstances and locations. The article argues, however, that currently applied models of growth are both inefficient and unsustainable, particularly as they are extractive of natural and human resources, and lead to significant inequalities that produce unaffordable costs. It has been 30 years since the Brundtland (1987) report for the UN highlighted these issues on a global level, yet unsustainable growth remains entrenched in the economic policy mindset. This article therefore calls for a more intelligent, efficient, sustainable and place-based approach to growth.

Wales provides an appropriate and potentially innovative location to consider these issues as it recently introduced binding legislation that requires all devolved public bodies to apply a Sustainable Development Principle and adopt new ‘Ways of Working’ to safeguard and secure the well-being of future generations. Nevertheless, as we will explore, although the Welsh Government has created a legislative framework for sustainable economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being, there is a risk that a conventionally narrow economic contingency remains the commanding principle. This potential contradiction between economic and social and environmental policy raises major questions around mechanisms for legislative enforcement, particularly where there is a growing concern that economic policy in Wales is showing a limited regard to well-being requirements. If Welsh Government is to successfully safeguard the well-being of future generations, as its own legislation requires, it needs to fully enact this legislation within its economic policy. We thus explore here some of the potential mechanisms by which it can ensure this objective.

The first part of the paper critically examines revised and more distributed concepts of economic development and growth before looking at recent policy initiatives (especially the City Deal initiatives) in South Wales. In the second part we empirically discuss three local ‘Deep Place studies’ – undertaken in Tredegar, Pontypool and Lansbury Park – developed so as uncover aspects of the foundational local economies in them. This demonstrates the need to weld together a more heterodox and distributed conceptualisation of economic growth rather than the dominant reliance upon the assumptions associated with agglomerated and centralised models. The latter tend to exacerbate social and spatial inequalities rather than ameliorate them. Such empirical results should inform critical policy debate at national and regional levels and assist in aligning broader aspects of regional economic development to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the unique ‘Future Generations’ policies enacting in Wales.

The growth economy

There is an increasing concern with the wealth inequalities that are seemingly inherent in the current, dominant neoliberal economic model (see, for example Castells et al., 2012; Dorling, 2015), which has failed to deliver its much promised ‘trickle down’ effect to ensure the benefits of economic growth accrue more equitably. Instead, economic growth unless accompanied by high progressive taxation has led to greater economic inequality (Piketty, 2014). The consequence has been a significant polarisation of wealth. Oxfam (2016) has identified that the richest 62 individuals now have more wealth than the World’s poorest 50%, and 1% of people now have as much wealth as the other 99%. This global trend is as apparent in the UK as it is elsewhere, and the richest 10% now have over £4tr of total UK net wealth whilst the poorest 10% has negative wealth as their debts exceed their assets. In 1997, the wealth of the richest 1% was 18 times that of the bottom 90%, by 2017 it was 60 times greater (Gulliver, 2016). Consequently, the UK is now one of the most unequal countries (OECD, 2017). Despite these trends, the dominant approach to economic development remains growth orientated, and it continues to be asserted that growth will benefit poorer communities as well as the wealthy.

Part of the explanation for the failure of growth to deliver its promised benefit to a broader spectrum of society may lie in current measurements of ‘success’. Fioramonti (2017a) says that ‘common sense’ would suggest that ‘…growth happens when we generate value that wasn’t there before’, which might be through the education of children, the improvement of population health or the preparation of food. If any of these activities generate costs we should deduct them from the value we have created. From this perspective, growth therefore ‘equals all gains minus all costs’. Paradoxically, Fioramonti says, the model of economic growth currently being pursued does the opposite of what the common sense perspective would suggest. He illustrates this by suggesting, for instance, that if a country cuts and sells all its trees it helps secure growth, but does not if it nurtures them. The problem may, therefore, lie in the identification of what is currently valued and used as a measurement of success. This example also helps illustrate the detrimental environmental impact of the dominant economic model, which has been a recurring theme in ecological thought.

Within the current growth-orientated paradigm, the narrative is heavily influenced by a concern with the need for places to compete. From this perspective, competition is a key factor in securing national or regional economic growth. Those cities (the narrative is very much focused on cities) with the highest proportions of ‘creative classes’ are likely to be the most competitive internationally (Engelen et al., 2016) and therefore able to secure external investment. Florida (2005) argued that successful cities should seek to attract the creative classes, principally by focusing their economic development resources on infrastructure projects. Meanwhile Glaeser (2012) suggested that central government support for struggling places and failing industries should be withdrawn as it distorts the market. Overman likewise argues that regional aid has not worked and should be removed (Engelen et al., 2016), the state should withdraw and places, principally cities or city-regions, should compete internationally. From this perspective, ‘resource depleted’ cities and regions should be allowed to decline and depopulate.

Alongside this emphasis on place competition, has been the growing influence within the growth-orientated paradigm of what has been termed ‘New Economic Geography’ (Hildreth and Bailey, 2013). Derived from economists such as Paul Krugman, New Economic Geography is essentially concerned with the spatial agglomeration of industries (Krugman, 1998) which, it argues, increases returns and knowledge spillovers, the implication being that national economic growth will benefit as a result (Pike and Tomaney, 2009). From this perspective, policies that seek to redistribute economic activity risk endangering the argued benefits of agglomeration (Martin, 2008). Those who advocate place competition nevertheless continue to call for significant public sector infrastructural investment and, often, direct financial inducements to attract large businesses, to create the conditions for competitive success. These costs are rarely acknowledged, nor are the potential adverse economic, social, cultural or environmental effects of agglomeration.

Although by traditional economic measures, London is often highlighted as an economic success story, this success is clearly underpinned by significant public sector expenditure. Those who call for a reduction of public expenditure in ‘failing places’ often fail to question whether the ‘success’ of places like London can be attributed, at least in part, to significantly higher public sector expenditure over a prolonged period through a process of ‘cumulative causation’ (for a full discussion see, for example O’Hara, 2008). The economy has been directed towards agglomeration in cities like London because of a belief that this would be the best way to secure economic growth. Massey (2010) termed the justifications put forward by those who advocate greater concentration of public sector investment in London and the South East, which have witnessed most investment, as ‘trickle-down geography’. This justification has also gained more recent traction in other UK cities, including those in Wales where it has been more typically referred to as a ‘wave’ or ‘ripple’ effect, rather than ‘trickle-down’ effect due to the political connotations.

The place-competitive nature of current dominant economic policy has led to circumstances where Neoliberalism is effectively publically subsidised. Scarce public resources are expended on the things that are either demanded by or which are believed to secure large-scale investment of international capital. This often has little relation to the things that are necessary for local well-being and seldom succeed in the objectives they are seeking to achieve. Such expenditure of public resources, due to their finite nature, often takes place in areas of so-called opportunity. For political and social reasons, regeneration programmes often target areas of need, but commonly and often ineffectually pursue the same rationale of attracting inward investment as pursued in areas of so-called opportunity. In disadvantaged places, public expenditure is called regeneration or ‘aid’, whereas in areas of opportunity it is called ‘investment’.

The UK Government’s growth agenda since 2010 was established with the publication of the Local Growth White Paper (HM Government, 2010), which abolished the English Regional Development Agencies and subsequently established Local Enterprise Partnerships, Enterprise Zones (HM Government, 2011) and City Deals (HM Government, 2012). Given the role of central government in each programme, this approach could be described as ‘centrally orchestrated localism’ (Harrison, 2008). Meanwhile, the City Deal programme (discussed in more detail below) has effectively sought to outsource the public sector borrowing requirements and the associated risk to local governments, whilst the UK Treasury pursued its own austerity programme. These programmes seek to replicate the conditions for economic success identified in London and continue to use extractive economic growth as the key measure on which to measure and audit success.

Economic policy in Wales, particularly following the publication of the Haywood Report (Welsh Government, 2012), appears to be consistent with the UK Government’s approach and the broader growth-orientated paradigm. The logic of internationally competitive cities and an emphasis on securing foreign investment, was accompanied by the targeting of nine ‘key sectors’ identified as having most growth potential, and the establishment of a series of Enterprise Zones to secure growth and attract investment. The Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) (Lewis, 2015) is taking this agenda forward in South East Wales, principally through the mechanisms of Cardiff’s own City Deal (a City Deal is also currently being developed in Swansea). Even the CCR Metro proposals, which have been the most talked about project of the Cardiff City Deal to date, have been praised by Welsh Government for their potential ability to deliver an ‘agglomeration effect’ (Welsh Government Ministerial Statement, 2015).

In March 2016, the Leaders of the 10 South East Wales local authorities, Welsh Government and the UK Government, signed a ‘Head of Terms’ statement of intent to create a CCR City Deal (Vale of Glamorgan Council, 2016). Prior to the formal signing of the City Deal, a Growth and Competiveness Commission was established with a remit to:

Review the evidence about the functional economic area and advise how best to generate Gross Value Added growth and support the ambitions of a dynamic capital region in a successful Welsh Economy.

The report of the Commission forms the basis of the Cardiff City Deal going forward (Growth and Competitiveness Commission, 2016). The City Deal Joint Committee has responsibility for ‘…the establishment of and management of the Cardiff Capital Region Wider Investment Fund(s) and delivery of key projects…’ (Pinsent Masons, 2017: 4). Although the Metro proposals have been grouped as part of the Cardiff City Deal, the City Deal Joint Working Agreement states that the ‘…Metro Scheme is being financed and procured directly by the Welsh Government outside of this Agreement and the Councils are not assuming any obligations or liabilities…’. The 10 South East Wales local authorities will agree a Joint Working Agreement Business Plan, which will include ‘…the methodology for agreeing the nature, scope and prioritisation of projects to be developed for the overall benefit of the Cardiff Capital Region…’ (Pinsent Masons, 2017).

The JWA Business Plan is focused on a growth-orientated approach to the economy. Candidate schemes for the Wider Investment Fund will be assessed, using a ‘Regional Impact Assessment Toolkit’, to measure how they will support the delivery of Programme Themes defined by an Implementation Plan. It is suggested, however, that the Assessment Toolkit ‘will be developed in accordance with the sustainable development principle’ and its objectives and targets will seek to support and promote the seven well-being goals as detailed in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act (WBFG Act). ‘An important aspect of this assessment toolkit will be its ability to identify the spread of any potential benefits to ensure geographic balance across the region and the ability of schemes to target need’ (Cardiff Capital Region City Deal, 2017). Contrasted against these references are the identified Appraisal Criteria of the Wider Investment Fund Assurance Framework (Cardiff Capital Region City Deal, 2017), which argues that ‘The City Deal provides an opportunity to continue tackling the area’s barriers to economic growth…’ and ‘…is expected to deliver up to 25,000 new jobs and leverage an additional £4 billion of private sector investment’. Furthermore, the Growth and Competitiveness Commission have recommended that all Candidate Schemes should also demonstrate ‘significant scale’, have ‘a positive impact on GVA’ and ‘impact beyond the local boundary area of where the investment takes place’. These are important points to highlight, as they may place the City Deal at odds with the goals of the WBFG Act as will be explored in greater detail below.

The Welsh economy has clear and persistent post-industrial structural weaknesses that have proved resistant, thus far, to development attempts despite considerable regional investment over an extended period. Such structural weaknesses are not exclusive to Wales and many other regions of the UK, Europe and beyond experience similar issues. With Brexit and thus the loss of former ring-fenced EU regional development funding the UK Government is not confirming details, or even the existence, of future regional economic development support (such as the suggested but still unspecified ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’). As such the prospect of a Welsh economy without access to significant development support is currently a real issue. It is surprising given the uncertainties about the lack of future regional economic support, and with the impact of Brexit on the Welsh economy still unknown, that there does not appear to have been a reconsideration of the City Deal agreement. As it currently stands, HM Treasury will continue to judge the success of the City Deal at each of its five-yearly gateway reviews for the next 20 years, on the basis of an agreement taken in the pre-Brexit referendum landscape. These indicators are extremely restrictive, and Welsh Government (2010) has previously accepted their limitations and even suggested that ‘…a broader range of indicators and a wider set of comparators than just Gross Value Added (GVA) gives a more balanced picture’. Nevertheless, economic growth is the primary metric against which the impact of the City Deal will be assessed by the UK Government.

Rethinking economic policy

The RSA Inclusive Growth Commission (2016) highlighted many of the socio-economic inequalities that exist in South East Wales. It argued that there is a need to place social capital on a par with traditional physical infrastructure when considering how to invest public resources in future growth. That means treating as investment, policies that are designed to bring poorer people and places up to the level where they can contribute equally to economic growth. The Bevan Foundation is also concerned to spatially redistribute economic activity to achieve greater equality and propose a South Wales ‘Valleys Deal’. First, they argue for three ‘Growth Hubs’ across the Heads of the South Wales Valleys, tied together to benefit from infrastructure investment in the Heads of the Valleys road. The growth hubs, they argue, should be based on towns with ‘real growth potential’ with ‘developable land and buildings’ and ‘should include some incentives for development, a big investment in skills, support for innovation and superb transport facilities’. Second, they argue for the need to ‘create a good live-work offer’, suggesting ‘if people are going to live and work in the Valleys, they need to be even better places to live than now’, including transport and good leisure opportunities and the need to create ‘garden villages in some of the communities surrounding the new growth hubs’ (Winckler, 2017). Nevertheless, growth, though spatially rebalanced, remains the key driver. This focus on securing and measuring growth is also evident amongst those who promote the value of the social business sector (Allies and Irving, 2017).

A more distributed model of the economy is clearly desirable for spatial equity, but, efforts to achieve it should be cautious about repeating the same mistakes that have made the current competitive agglomeration model unsustainable. The weakness in this approach is that, even in areas of significant economic activity, high growth, employment opportunities and infrastructure investment, like London, poverty and economic inequality continue to be prevalent. Nor is securing jobs at any rate desirable, as 60% of people of all ages living in poverty are now living in working households (Hick and Lanau, 2017). Simply moving the location of desired growth may not be enough to achieve social and economic equality. Johansson et al. (2005) also argued for a transformation in the industrial system towards a model of the ‘Distributed Economy’, thereby moving away from socio-economically and environmentally unsustainable large-scale centralised production. A selective share of overall production within this model is distributed and a diverse range of activities become small scale and flexible. In the distributed model of the economy each node is linked to several other nodes according to the needs and deliverables of each node (Van den Dool et al., 2009). This was further developed by Adamson and Lang (2016), who suggested that Wales would require a radical shift of economic policy to embrace an alternative approach to economic development, which seeks to identify the different, local models that are required for a more resilient fairer economy and society.

Castells et al. (2012) argued that the Great Financial Crisis triggered major structural changes in the European economies that indicate where future failure and success are likely to lie. Castells identified four sectors that emerged from the ‘aftermath’ of the Crisis: a revamped informational capitalist economy that will exploit new technologies and new products and will be the domain of a new professional elite; a crisis-ridden public and semi-public sector that will bear the continued brunt of the fiscal crisis; a survival-orientated traditional economic sector, with continued low productivity and low skilled employment opportunities; and an alternative economy emerging with different models and different values based on a rejection of previous practice. Castells emphasised the fourth of these sectors to help move towards a more sustainable economic future. Wales’ economic policy priorities remain overwhelmingly located in the diminishing public sector and survival-orientated manufacturing and service sectors, whilst its economic priorities appear to be focused on securing an elusive informational capitalist economy that appears poorly placed to achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Although Adamson and Lang’s (2014) Deep Place approach (Lang, 2016) (explored in more detail below) does not advocate a total separation of local economies from wider economic activity, it does suggest that economic activity needs to become significantly more localised to achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Semi-autonomous local economies, through localised supply chains and patterns of employment, will be an essential component of efforts to eradicate poverty and to achieve sustainability.

Gulliver (2017) developed a manifesto for the ‘Human City’, which is: ‘A geographically defined settlement – a city, town or village – where policies, practices and initiatives are enacted to ensure the best of human endeavours can flourish and where citizens and communities can shape an equitable, affordable and a shared society.’ In the Human City, he argues that more localised economies, with small enterprise and local/community ownership, can perform more cost-effectively in economic terms – especially job creation and retention of resources locally – whilst supporting citizen and community engagement, and boosting health, well-being and localised viability. Amongst other things, he calls for more effective local control of local assets, a point also pursued by Love’s (2017) pursuit of Asset Based Community Development in Glasgow, which seeks to identify and harness community skills and strengths. Adamson and Lang (2014) make similar arguments. Asset-based community development tends not to be captured in traditional measurements of growth. There is therefore little incentive for economic development to pursue alternative approaches. This suggests that a much more radical change of perspective may be required.

Radical change was supported by the United Nations Stiglitz report (2009) following the Global Financial Crisis. The Report stated that the

Reform of the international system must have, as its goal, the improved functioning of the world’s economic system in support of the global good. This entails simultaneously pursuing long-term objectives, such as sustainable and equitable growth, creation of employment in accordance with the “decent work” concept, responsible use of natural resources, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and more immediate concerns, including addressing the challenges posed by the food and financial crises and global poverty.

Growth-driven economies depend on the increased consumption of finite resources (land, water, energy), and even where these are supported by ‘green’ technologies their supply remains finite (Sutton, 2017). This suggests that if the goals of the Stiglitz report are to be realised, fundamental issues concerning growth must be addressed. The New Economic Foundation concluded that ‘unending global economic growth, it would seem therefore is not possible, but also neither desirable nor necessary’ (Murphy, 2010).

Work undertaken at the Sustainable Places Institute at Cardiff University has pointed to the greater need to address climate change-related environmental and ecological pressures. This work has pointed to the city-region of Stuttgart in Germany, as an exemplar of ecological land management and a circular, regenerative economy (Frank and Marsden, 2016). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, established to promote and support the development of the ‘Circular Economy’, has sought to decouple economic value creation from resource consumption. It argues that the ‘take, make, dispose’ economic model, relies on large quantities of easily accessible resources and energy, which are no longer available. Working towards efficiency by reducing the resources and fossil energy consumed per unit of economic output, the Foundation argues, will only delay the inevitable. Instead, ‘a more fundamental change of operating system is necessary’, perhaps developing a ‘Circular Economy’ (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). This requires a radically different set of economic strategies and priorities.

Interest in the Circular Economy is growing internationally, the EU has a Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2017), there is a new BSI Standard for Companies (BS8001) on Circular Economy (BSI, 2017), and various multinational companies such as Jaguar Land Rover (2016) are responding with the development of ‘closed loop value chains’. Welsh Government’s (2017) recent consultation on the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources also highlights the importance of the Circular Economy. More recently, Zink and Geyer (2017) have begun to question the perceived benefits of the Circular Economy model within a profit-driven context. They suggest that although appealing on environmental grounds, the economics of the Circular Economy might partially, or fully, offset the potential benefits. This is because, they argue, ‘…lower per-unit production impacts, also cause increased levels of production, reducing their benefit’. They describe this as ‘circular economy rebound’, and although they suggest there are certain strategies to overcome this rebound, they are unlikely to be attractive to for-profit businesses. This point was made by Jackson (2009), who stated that

those who promote decoupling as an escape route from the dilemma of growth need to take a closer look at the historical evidence…improvements in energy (and carbon) intensity…were offset by increases in the scale of economic activity over the same period.

The Well-being of Future Generations Act

The Well-being of Future Generations Act (2015) places a legal duty on all devolved public bodies in Wales that requires them to safeguard and improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. The Act contains seven Well-being Goals, and all devolved public bodies in Wales are responsible for taking all reasonable steps to maximise their contribution to all seven of these: Prosperous Wales, Resilient Wales, Healthier Wales, More Equal Wales, Wales of Cohesive Communities, Wales of Vibrant Culture and Thriving Welsh Language, and A Globally Responsible Wales. The Act also contains a Sustainable Development Principle and Five Ways of Working, which are the things that public bodies need to use to show that they have applied the Sustainable Development Principle, these are Long-term, Prevention, Integration, Collaboration and Involvement. The Future Generations Act in many respects embodies and extends many of the wider Sustainable Development Goals developed by the UN. In particular, SDG1 (wellbeing), SDG8 (on creating decent working conditions and sustainable economic growth) and SDG12 (concerning responsible production and consumption). Being a potential international leader in sustainable development places Wales and the Welsh Government in a potentially innovative position to progress alternative and more sustainable forms of economic and well-being development. The formal application of the WBFG Act therefore raises a series of issues relating to Wales’ economic policy direction, and in particular the degree to which economic development strategies, such as through City Deal programmes can begin to pursue and be aligned to these wider goals.

The UK Government is not subject to the WBFG Act and sees the City Deal programme, above all else, as a means to pursue standard measures of economic growth that may not be consistent with the Sustainable Development Principle. The UK Government has set the overarching priorities and approaches for the City Deal programme across the UK; this is now a core part of economic policy in South East Wales and is currently being developed in South West Wales. The WBFG Act requires devolved public bodies in Wales to adopt a place-based approach, which assumes that every place has different set of challenges and opportunities. This is why it requires Public Service Boards to develop their own place-based Well-being Plans. It remains to be seen how city-region ‘deals’ can accommodate a place-based approach, particularly where access to funding from the UK Government will be based on its estimation of the Deal’s success from a limited set of growth-based criteria at five-yearly Gateway Reviews. The projects of the CCR City Deal will be prioritised, above all, according to their ability to contribute to a 5% uplift in regional GVA in South East Wales. The WBFG Act requires public bodies to define prosperity more broadly and include efforts to move towards a low carbon society.

Ecological economics requires a new set of economic indicators, which include sustainability, social justice, ‘needs’ and equity. Some have suggested that GNP should be replaced by Adjusted National Product (Ekins, 1989). There are growing examples internationally of efforts to adopt broader measurements of economic success, which are more consistent with the sustainable development principle and that contribute readily to well-being. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development argues for an agenda based on people, planet and prosperity, and identifies that eradicating poverty is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development (United Nations, 2015). This builds on the work of the UN Brundtland Commission (1987) and has led to greater international interest in alternative measures of economic success that are more consistent with sustainable development. In the USA, some of the individual States use the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) as an alternative to GDP to measure whether economic progress results in sustainable prosperity. GPI accounts for effects of income inequality on well-being; values volunteering and education; and subtracts the negative effects of crime, unemployment and pollution (Kubiszewski et al., 2013). Bhutan has used a Gross National Happiness since 1972, and Australia has also begun using the Measure of Australia’s Progress with a broad range of indicators to address whether ‘life in Australia is getting better’ (The Conversation, 2014).

The CCR Growth and Competitiveness Commission was not charged in its terms of reference with ensuring the Sustainable Development Principle was accommodated. Furthermore, although the Commission was asked to undertake ‘consultation’ with ‘stakeholders’ in a process to determine the economic priorities of the CCR City Deal, the WBFG Act requires public bodies to ‘involve’ people and ensure they reflect the diversity of the area which the body serves. This goes beyond traditional consultation and requires involvement with broader communities, rather than stakeholders, within a limited economic policy community. Failure to involve a broader range of communities within decision-making process not only runs the risk of not meeting the legislative requirements of the WBFG Act, but, potentially, illustrates a broader democratic deficit. This is particularly significant as the City Deal may also require local authorities to borrow significant sums of money to fund investment within the programme, which places a burden and risk on both current and future generations.

The Tredegar, Pontypool and Lansbury Park Deep Place Studies

Ecological thinking has tended to combine a global message with a respect for local autonomy, which requires a consideration of the importance of ‘place’. Ecology has tended to argue that society needs to respect ‘ecological carrying capacity’, suggesting that people live in a place that needs to be on a human scale or a ‘bioregion’ (Tokar, 1987). In ecological thinking ‘place’ provides the best mechanism for grassroots participation. The Deep Place approach originally developed by Adamson and Lang (2014) argues that a focus on ‘place’ can be the most appropriate and effective means to address two significant and interconnected social policy problems: how to overcome the inequitable distribution of wealth, and the unacceptable agglomeration of poverty in post-industrial areas; and, how to effectively adjust to a more environmentally sustainable economic model.

The Deep Place approach is influenced by social exclusion analysis, Transition Theory, Total Place approaches to public service reform and the Foundational Economy. By combining an interest in economic with social and environmental issues, Deep Place also seeks to contribute to the broader discussions about growth. It suggests that place is the most appropriate mechanism to identify and support localised and distributed economic activity. This may in some cases lead to an increase in local economic growth, but because of its distributed nature this may be better placed overcome socio-economic inequalities and may also be more sustainable and lead, cumulatively, may mean a reduction in overall regional, national or international unsustainable economic activity.

To date, three Deep Place Studies have been undertaken in the UK: Tredegar (2014), Pontypool (2016) and Lansbury Park (2017). The research methods adopted sought to be inclusive of the wide variety of agencies and organisations involved in the various policy areas impacting on each place, and which are therefore critical to achieving a successful transition to a more sustainable and equitable future model. There were attempts to ensure meaningful qualitative community participation in each Study. The research methods were both desk-based quantitative and ethnographic qualitative. Deep Place is action-based research, which seeks to influence policy and delivery. Each Study sought to be a catalyst for change in internal community perceptions as well as external perceptions, and there was an attempt to involve many of those who would be of critical importance on implementing the transition approach advocated in each Study.

Although the Studies made use of official data, they also made much great use of quantitative data to establish a complete understanding of the ‘lived experience of poverty’ in each of the target locations. Upon establishing a thorough understanding of the linkages between the socio-economic and cultural components of poverty in each area, the Studies sought to focus on holistic solutions. There was also an element of ‘horizon scanning’ to identify current trajectories and to ascertain potential developments in the economy. ‘Think Spaces’ were used to better understand the challenges facing each community, to help map current interventions and to ‘borrow’ expertise in various policy fields. In addition, there were repeated opportunities to discuss research with key officers from local public services, as well as other non-public sector stakeholders. The remainder of this section provides brief overviews of each case study.

The Tredegar Deep Place Study

The Pontypool Deep Place Study

The Lansbury Park Deep Place Study

What is the economy for?

Growth has, thus far, led to significantly higher levels of inequality and a polarisation of wealth. The accepted route to secure growth has become the mantra of competitive agglomeration. This is often underpinned by significant and prolonged public sector ‘investment’, justified by a spatial reimagining of ‘trickle-down’. The City Deal programme has exacerbated the trend whereby the fundamentals of local and regional economic policymaking has been predetermined within a narrow set of performance criteria to evaluate success. It has also emasculated efforts to secure a more ecologically and socially sustainable version of city regionalism. The economic policy direction of Welsh Government remains largely consistent with that of the UK Government, where the logic of extractive growth, secured by competitive agglomeration, has become entrenched. This policy agenda is unlikely to be compatible with the sustainable development principle at the core of the WBFG Act. The WBFG Act requires a fundamental rethink of all policy areas in Wales, with well-being and the four pillars of sustainability at the core of policymaking.

Complex and open debate may sometimes be uncomfortable, but it is an integral part of well-being and sustainability. In Wales, the WBFG Act also requires more efficient and effective place-based delivery of public services, which necessitates a fundamental rethink by devolved public bodies in Wales on how they design and deliver their activities. It also throws down the challenge of fully integrating well-being and sustainability with economic policy. The Tredegar, Pontypool and Lansbury Park Deep Place Studies have provided case studies that illustrate the need for more holistic and interconnected social, economic, environmental and cultural policy development and public service delivery. They have argued that, particularly in disadvantaged locations, a place-based, whole-place response is critical to overcome often entrenched, multidimensional challenges experienced by these communities.

The Deep Place case studies have argued for a much stronger focus on holistic systems thinking to secure social, environmental and cultural, as well as economically efficient well-being in every community (Adamson and Lang, 2014, 2017; Lang, 2016;). They argue for more focus on locally specific priorities to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes for current and future generations. Simply stating that jobs and growth are the answer to a community’s future is a gross oversimplification, since it does not consider whether they benefit the community, or whether such growth and jobs continue to extract wealth, undermine sustainability or address the complex challenges faced. The Deep Place studies have also identified that place-based governance is the most efficient and effective mechanism for achieving change.

Most classical economic theories have a systematic expression of growth but an ignorance of ecological problems (Vincent, 1995). They also tend to assume that because growth produced some worthwhile goods for a very limited time that it is always desirable (Spretnak and Capra, 1986) and can go on indefinitely. As classical economic perspectives continue to dominate policy discussions, economists and policymakers tend to assume that the purpose of economic policy is to secure growth. Seldom do they ask, ‘what is the economy for?’. Asking this question permits a broader consideration of what economic priorities should be, since clearly the economy is not just for an extractive form of growth.

There is an increasing global interest in alternative and more sustainable economic models. Some of these perspectives question whether growth itself is a desirable objective, whilst others question the ability of large agglomerative capital projects to deliver sustainable growth. Transition towards post-carbon economies are a concern, with a growing interest in a more distributed, ‘bio-based’ economy (Luoma et al., 2011). Within the context of a city-regional agenda, the implications of a more distributed economic model are significant and appear to run counter to the agglomeration logic of current programmes. Fioramonti (2017a) argues, ‘contrary to the growth mantra, which has standardised development across the world…an economy that aspires to achieve wellbeing should be designed by those who live it, in accordance with their values and motives’. The UN Brundtland Commission (1987) suggested that ‘no single blueprint of sustainability will be found, as economic and social systems and ecological conditions differ widely…’. This seems entirely consistent with the Deep Place approach and with place-based governance. However, just as it is wrong to rigidly pursue growth at all costs, it is also wrong to dogmatically oppose it at all costs.

Conventional approaches to using growth and competitiveness show Wales’ performance remains poor, but does this miss the point? Rather than the pursuit of growth as an end in itself, it is time to ask more fundamental questions. The restricted GVA measurement of growth, as well as the pursuit of any jobs, has become the key metrics against which economic development is judged. We need, however, to consider whether we are measuring the wrong things. Well-being offers a more useful measurement of economic performance. This does not necessarily dismiss growth entirely if a sustainable model can be developed, which can spatially redistribute rather than extract to achieve ecological and social well-being. Local growth, which does not add to the burden of overall unsustainable national or international economic activity, could contribute to spatially rebalanced well-being. Well-being itself, should be determined at a place-based level using the sustainable development principle, and with the full involvement of communities.

This article, although providing an outline of three empirical case studies, seeks to contribute to macroeconomic policy. It is not an argument against growth or for defensive localism, but against the current dominant model of extractive growth that is both inefficient and unsustainable. Nor is it an argument about ‘the green economy’, but rather about the economy that needs to be green. The current dominant economic paradigm is extractive and inefficient, as it leads to significantly higher ecological and social costs that are unsustainable. Economic policy thus needs to be rethought to create a more distributive and efficient model of growth. A place-based approach to an ecologically and socially Circular Economy is required to achieve equitable and sustainable outcomes. The Deep Place methodology helps to uncover the anatomy of what this might look like and creates an arena within which to discuss and develop sustainable place-making. Place-based policymaking provides an arena within which the complications of embedding sustainability and well-being within economic policy, and vice versa, can be achieved. A focus of the livable scale helps to elucidate not only the impact of individual policy decisions, but also the economic, social, environmental and cultural consequences when multiple policy decisions interact.