The Policy.Partners / UCL Commission on Research for Better Economic Growth has been exploring the ways in which investment in research can drive improved economic outcomes, surfacing key questions around connectivity, regional and national capabilities and assets, and trade-offs in research policy.
Peter O’Brien has argued for the need to improve collaboration between London and the rest of the country; Joan Concannon has set out the need for changes to the research investment landscape in order to deliver real-world benefits recognised by individuals, and Jane Robinson has emphasised the importance of aligning civil, national and global priorities to drive local investment.
The Commission has also been reflecting on the breadth of ways in which research contributes to a strong economy. This is not just about how much income is generated, but about how research contributes to the foundations of our economy and society, through improving health and wellbeing, developing skills, contributing to culture, or supporting environmental sustainability. As economic growth remains a priority for the Government, a key question is how research can help to deliver better outcomes that benefit people right across the UK. With 25 per cent of research in the UK undertaken by universities, this is a fundamental question the sector must now ask itself.
Some growth is better than others
This surely has to start with asking ‘growth for what?’ and ‘growth for who?’. Decades of socio-economic and regional inequalities mean that even when universities have been contributing to economic growth, its benefits have not been widely shared or felt across the country. That represents a problem for universities who ultimately must demonstrate their value to taxpayers, as Richard Jones has recently argued.
For decades, universities justified their societal contribution by claiming they are engines of economic growth, drivers of innovation, creators of social mobility, and anchors of the knowledge economy. Universities love to highlight their patents, Nobel Prizes, and contributions to GDP. But these claims no longer persuade many citizens—especially in places affected by deindustrialisation, weak local economies, and declining public services. Such achievements feel abstract and irrelevant to communities facing insecure work, stagnation, and decline. If people do not experience economic growth in their daily lives, claims about national innovation carry little emotional or political weight.
We have argued in a recent paper that UK universities are facing not just a financial crisis, but a deeper moral and political crisis. They are increasingly seen as detached elites that benefit prosperous regions while failing to help many struggling communities across Britain. Universities’ social licence is in question. In these communities, universities are increasingly viewed as elitist, culturally disconnected, politically biased, and economically extractive rather than beneficial.
Public opinion more generally is shifting against universities. 45 per cent of Britons think too many young people go to university, many parents prefer apprenticeships over degrees, and support for universities is much lower among Reform UK supporters, who tend to be concentrated in the most economically disadvantaged places.
Growing distrust of universities is linked to wider populist politics in the UK, US, and Europe. Universities have become vulnerable political targets during an era of populism and distrust of elites, as evidenced by the attacks from politicians such as J. D. Vance and Nigel Farage. So far, universities have underestimated the seriousness of this threat.
There is a distinct geography to this crisis. Britain’s leading research universities (including our own) are disproportionately located in London and the South East, far from many struggling towns and former industrial areas. Access to elite universities varies strongly by region. London students have far higher top A-Level attainment than in other places, while social mobility has stalled in regions such as the North East. As a result, higher education reproduces geographical inequality rather than reducing it.
Make it real make me feel
Universities must renew their civic mission. They must move beyond abstract claims about excellence and growth and instead demonstrate visible local impact, long-term commitment to left-behind towns and regions, stronger partnerships with further education colleges, community-oriented research, and practical engagement with local problems. There is a key role for universities as a form of civic infrastructure that convenes and supports local communities.
All of this will require radical shifts in attitudes, incentives and practices within universities – as well as the wider research and higher education landscape, as Richard Brabner has noted in setting out a Civic 2.0 agenda. It will require long-term, sustainable commitments from all universities to work in genuine partnership within communities and civil society – building on the work of committed individuals to institutionalise civic engagement. It will also mean ensuring that universities’ civic activities are not super-imposed on local actors, but embed and respond to local needs at their core.
Universities cannot survive politically by presenting themselves only as globally prestigious knowledge institutions. Moreover, there is a large prize to be claimed – universities contributing to real solutions in the hardest-pressed places, the repair of the social fabric and the generation of real impact.
