The imbalanced but impactful UK Research Partnership Investment Fund

The UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) is designed to support investment into research facilities and support research partnership funds. UKRPIF is not only massive, having secured over £2.5bn of co-investment, but includes a stipulation that universities must attract £2 of investment for every £1 awarded.

The point of the fund is to support capital projects that underpin research. Projects have included £35m for the Imperial West Technology Campus – Molecular Sciences Research Hub and the Translation and Innovation Hub. £11m for the University of Liverpool’s Materials Innovation Factory. And a whole host of other investments from a 5G centre at the University of Surrey, to £10.5m for the Institute of Health Sciences at Queen’s University Belfast. £1bn has now been awarded to 59 projects since the fund was established in 2012.

The fund is expansive, geographically sprawling, getting spades in the ground, crowding in private investment, and now there is a handy interim evaluation that has been carried out by RAND Europe.

RAND Europe is generally positive about the success of the fund. They note that:

Ultimately, UKRPIF projects have yielded outputs and outcomes with the potential to catalyse local, regional and national economic growth, leading to early socio-economic benefits. For most HEPs consulted so far, the facilities, current research quality and academic partnerships would not have been delivered or accessed to the same extent (if at all) without the UKRPIF.

The fund is supporting the development of infrastructure which is supporting research across the UK. This is Research England’s single biggest fund and the funding is weighted toward clinical medicine, England, and the golden triangle. London alone has captured close to £280m worth of funding which is more than 100x the amount of funding allocated to the North East. In some respects this is inevitable as funding follows providers and there is a concentration of providers in London. It does however demonstrate the limitations of research funding and policy as a lever for addressing regional inequalities.

A plurality of higher education providers have reported that UKRPIF has supported them to improve their facilities either in the guise of new buildings, new equipment, refurbishment, or other capital investments. There are a handful of providers that are facing financial challenges in maintaining their facilities but most report their facilities to be high quality, well maintained, and that they have opened the door for further collaboration.

As well as providing good facilities UKRPIF has kicked off a virtuous circle for providers. The development of better facilities, funded through partnerships between Research England, universities, and funders, has allowed providers to attract further investment. In particular, the co-location of providers, industry, the third sector, and the use of facilities by the general public, has catalysed further research benefits. Although it’s too early to be definitive there are some early signs that these programmes are contributing positively to regional GVA.

Crucially, the initial evaluation does not suggest that Research England is crowding out funding but is instead bringing into existence new facilities that would not have existed without UKRPIF. Recipients of funds have not only stated that their facilities are bringing economic benefits but supporting spill-overs and collaborations that are also bringing social benefits to their areas.

There are further evaluations to come which will support greater understanding of the economic impacts of the scheme. In the meantime the authors recommend looking at the ways running costs are accounted for, the possibilities for joint bids, the regional balancing of funds, and support for smaller providers, as ways to enhance the scheme.