It's only fair to begin by acknowledging the strengths of this report. It correctly recognises the importance of London to the UK economy. During a decade of unbroken economic growth, London has been the anchor for the rest of the UK. Dominated by sectors that make economic geographers go weak at the knees – financial services, government and new economies such as digital media – London has underlined its position as the global city in which to do business.

Yet before we get going with the specifics of a critique, there are a couple of general points that seem to have evaded the radar of this report. First, areas outside London have performed well in recent years and this good performance has often been obscured by London's exceptional performance. This is a point that has been made before and made well.

Second, arguing that London's economy is somehow in competition with the rest of the country, is erroneous. Research has shown that the economies of London and the rest of the UK grow together.

By pursuing this line of argument, the authors of this report are asking policymakers to make a choice – either London benefits or everywhere else does – that they simply do not need to make.

Moving on to specifics, there is a multitude of criticisms that can be levelled at the report. Here are four to get things started:

The report assumes that levels of labour mobility (people's ability and willingness to relocate) are high and enjoyed universally. This is an oversight commonly made by those whose careers have led to them frequently moving internationally; it is simply not the reality for millions of people in the UK today.

People decide where to live based on a variety of factors, frequently including the location of social networks and family. They are rarely – much to the disappointment of economists – rational, calculated and driven solely by financial gain.

Dangerous parallels can be drawn with an initiative that dare no longer speak its name in County Durham. Some 20-25 years ago, the idea that financial support for former coalfield villages should be withdrawn was floated in County Durham.These villages would be consigned to history and would slowly be allowed to, well, die. The policy was hugely controversial and eventually scrapped.

This report proposes a similar policy direction, but on a national scale. Its assertion that the economic position of somewhere like Sunderland is irretrievable is not borne out by fact; many of the villages (particularly in the rolling hills of West Durham) have recovered, become economically stable and are now desirable places to live.

It is difficult to see what the public policy angle is here. London is thriving. The 2001 census tells us it is already the only region of the UK that experiences a net gain of 20-24 year-olds (we can assume that this cohort is ambitious and highly qualified and most likely to stimulate economic growth).

London has grown over the years that government has been committing resources to stimulating growth elsewhere and it will continue to do so. It has the economic resolve – partly because of the centralised nature the high growth sectors referenced earlier – to maintain this growth without excessive intervention.

Last, but by no means least, is concern over the capacity of London's infrastructure. On current projections, and much to the chagrin of city leaders elsewhere, London has already bagged itself £16bn for Crossrail. Actively incentivising an acceleration of this migrationary trend is difficult to comprehend. Surely continuing the growth of cities outside London alleviates this and equivalent transformational improvements in infrastructure there are likely to be less expensive.

There are many imperatives for pursuing sustainable, inclusive economic growth throughout the UK. Some of these are no doubt ideological, but not exclusively so. The strong empirical basis for this Government's commitment to develop areas outside Greater London remains. The commitment is driven as much by a desire to maximise economic efficiency as social equality.

We may think that government could do more, but we certainly don't think it should give up.


Michael Johnson is a research fellow with the IPPR North – the Institute of Public Policy Research.