Select Committee on Science and Technology Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Annex

  The table below shows the GERD per capita index for the UK regions (excluding figures for research carried out in the private, not-for-profit sector which is excluded from the published information). It can be seen that there are three English regions whose performance is worse than that of the North West, the recipient of £25 million funding in response to the Synchrotron announcement. The North West has a population of some 7 million, so if the £50 million of the RIF were concentrated on the delivery of the RISs in the three worse-performing English regions, this would give £50 million over 13 million population, a similar investment level to NWSRT (separate arrangements from the RIF apply in each of the territorials so they are excluded from the calculations).

Table 1

THE UK REGIONS RANKED BY GERD PER CAPITA INDEX (UK=100), 1997

  
GERD (£m)
Population (000s)
GERD index
United Kingdom
14,462
58,605
100
Eastern
2,767
5,257
213
South East (GOR)
3,415
7,847
176
South West
1,146
4,828
96
London
1,593
7,007
92
East Midlands
899
4,123
88
North West
1,503
6,899
88
West Midlands
988
5,306
75
Scotland
876
5,136
69
North East
344
2,605
52
Yorkshire & the Humber
540
5,029
44
Wales
257
2,916
36
Northern Ireland
145
1,649
36


  Source: economic trends, regional trends, author's own calculations

NOTES:

  1 Department of Trade and Industry (2000) The Science White Paper, London: DTI; Department of Trade and Industry & Office of Science and Technology (2000) Science Budget 2001-02 to 2003-04, London: HMSO.

  2 cf "The innovation process is a cycle (which) must be fed by ideas and basic knowledge . . . major innovations flow from breakthroughs made by curiosity-driven research" (paragraphs 1.7-1.9).

  3 cf Charles, D R & Benneworth, P S "Creating new products and processes" Competitiveness Project Thematic Report, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: CURDS; Benneworth, P S (2001) "Innovation in a peripheral industrial region" Unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  4 This is recognised in the so-called Dual Systems adopted in UK universities in which all establishments receive funds dependent on the numbers of their staff; these funds support teaching and teaching staff are expected to be research active, although these funds are supplemented by the second "leg" of funding, competitive and project-specific research funds, such as those administered by the research councils.

  5 Research capacity is important because of the progressive and indeterminate nature of scientific progress. Many of the benefits that arise from innovation are tangential to the actual research activities, but research activity conditions individuals and teams with new techniques for solving problems; although conceived in laboratory conditions, their application by scientists and engineers to commercial and industrial problems is a vital source of innovation.

  6 This reluctance to support regional development priorities was to prove a decisive factor in the location of the new Diamond synchrotron at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot.

  7 cf Boekholt, P & Thuriaux, B (1999) "Public policies to facilitate clusters: background, rationale and policy practices in international perspective" in OECD (eds) Boosting innovation: the cluster approach, Paris: OECD; Charles, D R & Benneworth, P S (2000) Clustering and economic complexity—regional clusters of the ICT sector in the UK' paper presented to Do clusters matter in innovation policy? OECD Cluster Group Workshop, Utrecht, Netherlands, 8-9 May 2000.

  8 This is exemplified by the science enterprise challenge centres, where the initial competition resulted in centres for all regions with the exception of Northern Ireland and the North East, which was overturned when these centres were provided through funds released by the creation of the Cambridge-Massachusetts Institute. This demonstrated once more the commitment of the DTI to funding existing excellence over diffusing diversity across the UK regions. The DTI provided funds to one centre (at Cambridge University) at a level well beyond the total funds provided to the remainder of the UK network.

  9 cf Heim, C E (1988) "Government Research Establishments, state capacity and distribution of industrial policy in Britain" Regional Studies 22 (5) pp 375-386.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 3 April 2001