Industrial Strategy (United Kingdom)

Industrial Strategy (United Kingdom)
Name	Industrial Strategy (United Kingdom)
Jurisdiction	United Kingdom
Introduced	2017
Minister	Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Current status	Replaced / evolved

Contents

Industrial Strategy (United Kingdom) was a policy framework introduced by the Theresa May ministry to coordinate long-term planning for United Kingdom manufacturing, science, infrastructure and skills. It sought to align public investment across departments such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, link to programmes like the Industrial Strategy Council and engage firms including Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Unilever and Jaguar Land Rover. Framed amid events such as the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, the strategy intersected with institutions like the Bank of England, European Investment Bank negotiations and actors including the Confederation of British Industry, Trade Union Congress, Local Enterprise Partnerships and devolved administrations such as the Scottish Government.

Background and policy context

The strategy emerged after debates triggered by the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, the 2017 United Kingdom general election and commentary from bodies like the National Infrastructure Commission, Institute for Fiscal Studies, OECD and World Bank. Influences included industrial prescriptions from historical episodes such as the Post-war consensus, critiques from reports by the IPPR, Resolution Foundation and analyses by academics at London School of Economics, University of Oxford and University of Cambridge. Financial context involved interactions with the Bank of England monetary policy, capital flows from the European Investment Bank and business views represented by the Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors.

Core elements included sectoral "Grand Challenges" that targeted technologies exemplified by artificial intelligence firms interacting with institutions like Alan Turing Institute; measures to bolster regional growth via Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine; and commitments to research hubs such as the Science and Technology Facilities Council and UK Research and Innovation. Objectives linked productivity aims from reports by the Productivity Commission with skills agendas advocated by University and College Union and technical training frameworks referencing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. Investment instruments invoked included the British Business Bank, partnerships with Nesta and supply-chain arrangements affecting firms like AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

Delivery mechanisms involved the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, oversight bodies such as the Industrial Strategy Council and local delivery through Local enterprise partnerships and devolved institutions including the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. Funding channels used public bodies including the British Business Bank, the National Infrastructure Commission and programmes administered alongside the European Investment Bank prior to changes after the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Ministerial actors included figures from the Theresa May ministry and liaison with regulators like the Competition and Markets Authority and funding institutions such as UK Research and Innovation.

Responses varied: multinational manufacturers including Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems engaged with supply-chain funding while service firms such as Barclays and HSBC Holdings plc assessed impacts on finance-sector activity. Regions targeted by the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine reported mixed outcomes in comparisons with metrics from the Office for National Statistics and analyses by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and National Audit Office. Innovation indicators cited collaborations among University of Oxford, University of Cambridge spinouts, Cambridge University Press partnerships and clinical trials led by National Health Service trusts tied to pharmaceutical firms like GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

Critiques came from think tanks such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Adam Smith Institute and Resolution Foundation arguing about scope, timing and funding levels relative to austerity policies associated with prior cabinets including the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. Trade unions like the Trade Union Congress raised concerns about industrial strategy delivery versus employment protections, while commentators at the Financial Times and The Economist questioned efficacy compared with models from the German model and French dirigisme. Debates also involved procurement choices spotlighting firms like Serco and Capita and the role of state-directed finance compared with the European Investment Bank.

Comparators included national strategies in Germany, France, Japan and South Korea where institutions such as Fraunhofer Society, Agence nationale de la recherche, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan) and Korean Development Institute shaped industrial policy. Subsequent UK policy evolution under later administrations referenced the strategy’s frameworks in discussions tied to the Levelling Up White Paper and new instruments echoing the British Business Bank and regional initiatives like the Northern Powerhouse. Legacy assessments by the National Audit Office, Institute for Government and academic studies at London School of Economics continue to weigh outcomes against benchmarks from the OECD and World Bank.