IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v38y2023i6p562-581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of freeports – a place-based analysis of regional economic regeneration in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cotton
  • David Tyfield
  • Nicholas Gray
  • Andy Yuille

Abstract

Freeports are special economic zones, providing tax and customs benefits aimed at reducing economic friction and encouraging regional development. This place-based policy analysis of UK freeports draws upon qualitative interviews and deliberative workshops with leading industry, government, and civil society stakeholders in the two largest Freeport regions – Teesside and Liverpool. We find first, that purported tax, customs, and planning benefits are deemed less economically important than the agglomeration of innovation industries within a defined geographic boundary. Second, that stronger action on environmental and economic (in)justice is needed – Freeports could be a just transition mechanism if they can avoid capture by a ‘closed shop’ of industry players. Third, Freeports could facilitate cross-sectoral low-carbon economic regeneration, though they are subject to cycles of expectation, hype, and disappointment. We conclude that national policymakers must acknowledge the competing geographic and governance scales emerging within Freeport-hosting communities, as distributive environmental injustices between different locations remain broadly unaddressed. Finally, though cognisant of changes in political leadership on the horizon, we conclude that Freeports will increase the geographic spread of environmental injustice if this model of low-tax and low-regulation economics becomes a political norm within UK regional economic redevelopment strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cotton & David Tyfield & Nicholas Gray & Andy Yuille, 2023. "The politics of freeports – a place-based analysis of regional economic regeneration in the United Kingdom," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 38(6), pages 562-581, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:38:y:2023:i:6:p:562-581
    DOI: 10.1177/02690942241239014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02690942241239014
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/02690942241239014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ray Hudson, 2005. "Rethinking Change in Old Industrial Regions: Reflecting on the Experiences of North East England," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(4), pages 581-596, April.
    2. Christopher A Hooton & Peter Tyler, 2019. "Do Enterprise Zones have a role to play in delivering a place-based industrial strategy?," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 12(3), pages 423-443.
    3. Nidhi Chaudhary & Jonathan Potter, 2019. "Evaluation of the local employment impacts of enterprise zones: A critique," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(10), pages 2112-2159, August.
    4. Martina Lawless & Edgar L. W. Morgenroth, 2019. "The product and sector level impact of a hard Brexit across the EU," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 189-207, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qiangmin, XI & Peng, JI, 2023. "Does the development zone promote population urbanization? Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Rehák Štefan & Hudec Oto & Buček Milan, 2013. "Path dependency and path plasticity in emerging industries: Two cases from Slovakia," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 57(1-2), pages 52-66, October.
    3. Gavin Bridge & Ludger Gailing, 2020. "New energy spaces: Towards a geographical political economy of energy transition," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(6), pages 1037-1050, September.
    4. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    5. Ansgar Belke & Daniel Gros, 2017. "The Economic Impact of Brexit: Evidence from Modelling Free Trade Agreements," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 45(3), pages 317-331, September.
    6. Lawless, Martina & Morgenroth, Edgar, 2018. "Brexit and Irish Consumers," Quarterly Economic Commentary: Special Articles, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    7. Hiau Looi Kee & Alessandro Nicita, 2024. "Quantifying economic impacts of trade agreements with heterogeneous trade elasticities," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 1270-1299, August.
    8. Roemer, Kelli F. & Haggerty, Julia H., 2021. "Coal communities and the U.S. energy transition: A policy corridors assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Rasa Stasiukynaite, 2019. "Reordering international trade: what will it cost?," Bank of Lithuania Occasional Paper Series 27, Bank of Lithuania.
    10. Studnicka, Zuzanna & Lawless, Martina, 2018. "Cross-border trade & supply chain linkages report," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number BKMNEXT352.
    11. Rita Cappariello & Milan Damjanovic & Michele Mancini & Filippo Vergara Caffarelli, 2018. "EU-UK global value chain trade and the indirect costs of Brexit," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 468, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    12. Stefanie Walter, 2021. "EU‐27 Public Opinion on Brexit," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 569-588, May.
    13. Christine Arriola & Caitlyn Carrico & David Haugh & Nigel Pain & Elena Rusticelli & Donal Smith & Frank van Tongeren & Ben Westmore, 2018. "The Potential Macroeconomic and Sectoral Consequences of Brexit on Ireland," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1508, OECD Publishing.
    14. Fredin, Sabrina, 2013. "New Perspectives on Innovative Entrepreneurship and Path Dependence – A Regional Approach," Working Papers 2013/06, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics.
    15. Morgenroth, Edgar, 2018. "Prospects for Irish Regions and Counties: Scenarios and Implications," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS70.
    16. Robert Huggins & Michael Stuetzer & Martin Obschonka & Piers Thompson, 2021. "Historical industrialisation, path dependence and contemporary culture: the lasting imprint of economic heritage on local communities [Technology and the labour market]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(6), pages 841-867.
    17. Maximilian Lemprière & Vivien Lowndes, 2019. "Why did the North East Combined Authority fail to achieve a devolution deal with the UK government?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(2), pages 149-166, March.
    18. Stuart Dawley & Andy Pike & John Tomaney, 2010. "Towards the Resilient Region?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 25(8), pages 650-667, December.
    19. Cristian Gherhes & Tim Vorley & Nick Williams, 2018. "Entrepreneurship and local economic resilience: the impact of institutional hysteresis in peripheral places," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 577-590, October.
    20. Eduardo Gutiérrez & Aitor Lacuesta & César Martín‐Machuca, 2024. "Brexit: Trade Diversion due to Trade Policy Uncertainty," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 86(5), pages 1058-1088, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:38:y:2023:i:6:p:562-581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.