Witty's arrows of outrageous fortune
The relationship between universities and business in the name of improving economic growth has been a well reviewed area in recent years – Richard Lambert in 2003 and Tim Wilson in 2011 were both commissioned in times when politicians thought that universities could and should be doing more to improve both national and local economies. Is the newly published Witty Review any different?
The short answer is yes. Witty breaks with the most recent reports and the economic thinking of much of the last four decades by advocating a series of highly targeted interventions. This is industrial policy writ large – for some, the latest and most detailed recipe for government intervention in innovation and in key areas of the economy; the latest doomed attempt to 'pick winners' for others.
Witty is kindest to Wilson (echoing his description of universities as "anchor institutions"), doesn't even mention Lambert, but is ultimately most dismissive of Michael Heseltine. By opting for a "sector not postcode" approach he deliberately takes a different path. Heseltine has been put back under a rock.
Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and other bodies seeking local growth get a lot of coverage but not a huge amount of support in Witty's thinking. "Britain doesn't breed entrepreneurs," he says, "it breeds endurance entrepreneurs" fighting through a "thicket of complexity that exists between central and local structures". Where LEPs do exist, they should at least put universities at the heart of the thinking and decision-making. His main recommendation is for them to spend their EU structural funds to better support innovation and not a great deal else.
It's hard not to be a little sympathetic. We've seen the alternative where every medium-sized city or region claims world leading clusters as well as ambitions for the latest buzz sector. Under the Labour government, Matthew Taylor, then of the IPPR, described "biotech and ballet" as shorthand for the economic strategies adopted by most Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) or city regions in the UK. It's clear that Witty considers much of the ensuing local or regional architecture (whether LEPs, RDAs or city deals) as largely "wrong-headed in a small country".
He is much more generous to universities advocating "an enhanced third mission" right across the sector. "The full diversity of institutions have a role to play, from local small and medium-sized enterprise support and supply chain creation, to primary technology leadership and breakthrough invention.'' Incentives should be strengthened to encourage maximum engagement from universities in the third mission alongside research and education."
We already knew from the interim report that Witty likes a map, but this review further reveals his interest in diversity. Maps showing SME collaboration and business start ups highlight institutions like Wolverhampton, Northampton, Buckinghamshire New and the University of the Creative Arts. The maps on research concentration among the "eight great technologies" are more predictably concentrated around the Russell Group, but Witty takes care to link rather than separate the two – the economy doesn't work like that and neither should higher education.
He calls for some very specific policies. His headline idea a £1bn fund for 'Arrow Projects – universities whose cutting edge research generates economic activity through innovation – feels like a supercharged Technology Strategy Board (TSB). The TSB isn't fully endorsed – nor is UK Trade & Investment (UKTI). Both need to communicate better according to Witty and be more transparent in their processes and activities.
Most interesting– and perhaps disruptive – is his view that Arrow Projects might also be able to access funds from the TSB, Research Councils, European Structural and Investment Funds, the Regional Growth Fund and others besides. Witty argues convincingly for more assessment in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) as well as reformulated Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) programme so it clearly incentives working with innovative SMEs.
As far as eligibility is concerned, Witty is again clear HEIF should be big enough to fund all good claims on it and adjust so that institutions that receive no formula funding are not excluded for the next four years and lacking incentive to pursue third mission activities. Those that miss out should have the opportunity to up their game the following year.
The government will really like his call for better, more open information about research. And in a further nod to Wilson, he sees the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) as the ideal vehicle to take this forward.
It may be intentional that Witty is being published on the same day that the prime minister's business taskforce reports on cutting EU red tape. Apparently there have been 3,580 anti-business 'rules' introduced by the EU since 2010. Some may have even contributed to Witty's "thicket of complexity", though I suspect most of the local architecture that he dislikes comes from this as well as the last government.
Witty has produced a pretty good report. However, the rolling out all of his recommendations will be more controversial than the report itself. It is less likely to appeal to conservative politicians (note the small 'c') as much as the more comfortable territory of anti-EU and bureaucracy-busting agendas.
Industrial policy is still an instinctively uncomfortable place for civil servants and politicians alike – whether in the local form outlined by Heseltine orthrough the sectoral arrows unleashed by Witty. But his is ultimately a better plan for growth.
Andy Westwood is chief executive of GuildHE – follow him on Twitter @guildheceo
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Looking for your next university role? Browse Guardian jobs for hundreds of the latest academic, administrative and research posts