IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-21-14.html

Regional Just Transitions in the UK: Insights from 40 Years of Policy Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Rising, James
  • Dumas, Marion
  • Dicker, Sophie
  • Propp, Daniel
  • Robertson, Molly

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Look, Wesley

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

The industrial economy is expected to experience vast changes over the next 20 years as clean energy technologies displace fossil fuels. These transformations will create opportunities and challenges, with many workers needing new jobs and many communities requiring new engines of growth. Such changes are an inherent part of a dynamic economy, but the risks that emerge from the transition to a low-carbon economy are distinctive. Unlike other economic transformations, a rapid clean energy transition will likely be the result a vast collective choice facilitated by sweeping new policies. Although it will produce great benefits globally by arresting and reversing growth in greenhouse gas emissions, without some measures to offset the effects on local labor markets and economies, this transition will also impose hardships on people and regions connected to fossil fuel–dependent industries.Consequently, policies need to engender a “Just Transition,” with participatory decision-making processes and equitable sharing of the benefits and costs of transition. The concept of a Just Transition has multiple dimensions. In the broadest sense, it encompasses two criteria. First, the benefits and costs of a sustainable transition of a country’s economy are fairly distributed. For example, low-income consumers should not be made to face exorbitant costs from the need to transition to alternative fuels or forms of transportation. Second, an environmentally sustainable transition should promote inclusive growth by “contributing to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and the eradication of poverty” (ILO 2015). For a Just Transition, three groups need to be considered: consumers, workers in particular industries, and members of communities in the affected regions.Green and Gambhir (2020) identify three types of policies to support those three groups. First are compensation policies that compensate for financial loss, such as redundancy benefits for workers, revenue replacement grants for local governments, and tax incentives to corporations. Second are structural adjustment policies, such as training support for workers, R&D subsidies for corporations, and infrastructure investment for communities. Finally, comprehensive adaptive support policies promote an integrated approach to helping people and places adapt to new conditions by coordinating decarbonization planning, seeking reemployment of workers in cleaner industries, and developing new sources of local revenue and public goods provision.Past economic transitions have posed challenges similar to those presented by today’s energy transition: new technologies that reshape industries always create winners and losers; liberalization and trade can undercut wages and eliminate jobs; regions that boom by specializing under one economics regime go bust under another. As workers, industries, and communities struggled, governments were prompted to intervene to provide transitional assistance. In the United Kingdom in particular, the transition away from coal is a case in point. Coal mining reached a peak employment of 1.1 million miners in 1913, then fell to a complete closure of major mines in 2015. This coal-sector transition was compounded by an economy-wide deindustrialization of the UK economy as other heavy industries, such as iron and steel manufacturing and shipbuilding, also declined.The United Kingdom has tried a dizzying array of policies, at multiple levels of government, to address economic transitions. Although some policies provide lessons for future transitions, many lessons are the result of past failures. The response of the UK Government to momentous change in the coal sector was mostly reactive. Targeted policies to support economic transition were enacted only after the coalfields and industrial areas were beset by social and economic problems. The response was fragmented, creating an inconsistent set of regeneration policies. Funding was small, given the scale of national economic policy and the economic forces that were exacerbating inequality. Most of the coalfield regions remain poor, and regional inequality is among the highest in Europe (Martin et al. 2016) .In some respects, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in climate change policy. Since 2001, it has imposed a climate change levy on top of the costs imposed by the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, thereby driving fossil fuels out of its national energy mix. The Climate Change Act of 2008 included the first legally binding mitigation target set by a country, and an amendment in 2019 committing the United Kingdom to net-zero by 2050 made it the first major economy to have such a goal. The Climate Change Act of 2008 also established the Climate Change Committee, a powerful independent statutory body that advises government, issues strategic reports, serves as a custodian of UK climate policy, and monitors progress toward the long-term objectives set in the act (Fitzgerald and Leigh 2002).Internationally, the United Kingdom launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance in partnership with Canada in 2017 to support national and subnational governments, businesses, and organizations in the transition from unabated coal power generation to clean energy. The alliance has more than 100 members, all seeking to phase out the use of coal globally.Those policies and initiatives, intended to help ensure a sustainable future for the world, have led to a shift in the UK economy, leaving many businesses, workers, and communities behind. In this report, we focus on workers and communities. We review both historical policies for the coalfields and distill lessons for future Just Transition policy from regional regeneration in the United Kingdom. However, the central lessons are to not rely on regional regeneration alone to redress shocks and to anticipate and prepare for disruptive transitions. We also review recent policy developments that suggest the way forward, toward an integrated, whole-government project focused on inclusive clean energy growth.The remainder of this section describes our scope and our approach to assessing policy outcomes. Section 2 provides brief background on the UK institutional structure and climate policy. Section 3 reviews historical coal transitions in the broader context of regional regeneration policies in the United Kingdom. This discussion highlights the changing ideologies in government over the past 50 years, from a reliance on market-based mechanisms to an emphasis on localization. Section 4 assesses those policies and their outcomes. Section 5 discusses the recent evolution toward integrated policy approaches to fossil fuel transitions in the UK. Finally, Section 6 brings this experience together to offer recommendations for future policymaking.To read the full report, click "Download" above.

Suggested Citation

  • Rising, James & Dumas, Marion & Dicker, Sophie & Propp, Daniel & Robertson, Molly & Look, Wesley, 2021. "Regional Just Transitions in the UK: Insights from 40 Years of Policy Experience," RFF Reports 21-14, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-21-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/3227/UK_Report_-_with_Appendix.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oei, Pao-Yu & Brauers, Hanna & Herpich, Philipp, 2020. "Lessons from Germany’s hard coal mining phase-out: policies and transition from 1950 to 2018," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(8), pages 963-979.
    2. Criscuolo, Chiara & Martin, Ralf & Overman, Henry & Van Reenen, John, 2012. "The Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 6323, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Alkire, Sabina & Foster, James, 2011. "Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 476-487, August.
    4. Chiara Criscuolo & Ralf Martin & Henry G. Overman & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Some Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 48-85, January.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit & William Kerr, 2016. "Networks and the Macroeconomy: An Empirical Exploration," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 273-335.
    6. Michael Kitson & Jonathan Michie, 2014. "The Deindustrial Revolution: The Rise & Fall of UK Manufacturing, 1870-2010," Working Papers wp459, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    7. Ron Martin & Andy Pike & Peter Tyler & Ben Gardiner, 2016. "Spatially Rebalancing the UK Economy: Towards a New Policy Model?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 342-357, February.
    8. Riccardo Crescenzi & Mara Giua, 2016. "The EU Cohesion Policy in context: Does a bottom-up approach work in all regions?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(11), pages 2340-2357, November.
    9. Aragón, Fernando M. & Rud, Juan Pablo & Toews, Gerhard, 2018. "Resource shocks, employment, and gender: Evidence from the collapse of the UK coal industry," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 54-67.
    10. Andr�s Rodr�guez-Pose & Enrique Garcilazo, 2015. "Quality of Government and the Returns of Investment: Examining the Impact of Cohesion Expenditure in European Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(8), pages 1274-1290, August.
    11. Fergus Green & Ajay Gambhir, 2020. "Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: who, what and how?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 902-921, September.
    12. Pao-Yu Oei & Hanna Brauers & Philipp Herpich, 2020. "Lessons from Germany’s hard coal mining phase-out: policies and transition from 1950 to 2018," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 963-979, September.
    13. Christina Beatty & Steve Fothergill, 2020. "Recovery or stagnation?: Britain’s older industrial towns since the recession," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(9), pages 1238-1249, September.
    14. Andy Pike & David Marlow & Anja McCarthy & Peter O’Brien & John Tomaney, 2015. "Editor's choice Local institutions and local economic development: the Local Enterprise Partnerships in England, 2010–," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 8(2), pages 185-204.
    15. Bonoli, Giuliano, 2013. "The Origins of Active Social Policy: Labour Market and Childcare Policies in a Comparative Perspective," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199669769.
    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. Marco Di Cataldo, 2016. "Gaining and losing EU Objective 1 funds: Regional development in Britain and the prospect of Brexit," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 120, European Institute, LSE.
    2. Gazmararian, Alexander F., 2024. "Fossil fuel communities support climate policy coupled with just transition assistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Dhandhania, Kopal & Unni, Jeemol & Pathak, Minal, 2025. "Recognizing historic injustice in a coal-rich district: A case study of Singrauli, India," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Daniela- Luminița CONSTANTIN & Clara-Alexandra VOLINTIRU, 2024. "Place-Based Policy Responses To Spatial Inequalities," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(2), pages 43-62, June.
    5. Ichev, Riste & Valentinčič, Aljoša, 2025. "The effect of impact investing on performance of private firms," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(PA).
    6. Julia Bachtrögler & Christoph Hammer & Wolf Heinrich Reuter & Florian Schwendinger, 2019. "Guide to the galaxy of EU regional funds recipients: evidence from new data," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 103-150, February.
    7. Gibbons, Stephen & Overman, Henry & Sarvimäki, Matti, 2021. "The local economic impacts of regeneration projects: Evidence from UK's single regeneration budget," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    8. Zheng, Guo & Barbieri, Elisa & Di Tommaso, Marco R. & Zhang, Lei, 2016. "Development zones and local economic growth: zooming in on the Chinese case," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 238-249.
    9. Bruns, Daniel & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2025. "The Impact of Germany's Coal Phase-Out on Local Property Values," VfS Annual Conference 2025 (Cologne): Revival of Industrial Policy 325450, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Gruenhagen, Jan Henrik & Terrill, Janice & Cox, Stephen, 2025. "Igniting sparks for the transition of a coal mining region: The role of firm- and system-level agency to innovate, diversify and create new growth paths in a regional innovation system," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Di Stefano, Roberta & Resce, Giuliano, 2025. "The determinants of missed funding: Predicting the paradox of increased need and reduced allocation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    12. Dicharry, Benoit & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Pham, Thi Kim Cuong, 2019. "“The winner takes it all” or a story of the optimal allocation of the European Cohesion Fund," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 385-399.
    13. Steve Fothergill & Tony Gore & Peter Wells, 2019. "Industrial strategy and the UK regions: sectorally narrow and spatially blind," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 12(3), pages 445-466.
    14. Zewdie Habte Shikur, 2020. "Industrial policy measure and economic structure in Ethiopia: the case of Oromia region," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 255-274, February.
    15. Andrea Ascani & Simona Iammarino, 2018. "Multinational enterprises, service outsourcing and regional structural change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(6), pages 1585-1611.
    16. Gonzalo Nunez-Chaim & Henry G. Overman & Capucine Riom, 2024. "Does subsidising business advice improve firm performance? Evidence from a large RCT," CEP Discussion Papers dp1977, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Ganau, Roberto & Kilroy, Austin, 2023. "Detecting economic growth pathways in the EU’s lagging regions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115162, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Jan-Philipp Sasse & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2023. "A low-carbon electricity sector in Europe risks sustaining regional inequalities in benefits and vulnerabilities," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Regional Effects of Publicly Sponsored R&D Grants on SME Performance," Ratio Working Papers 289, The Ratio Institute.
    20. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Bartalucci, Federico & Lozano-Gracia, Nancy & Dávalos, María, 2024. "Overcoming left-behindedness. Moving beyond the efficiency versus equity debate in territorial development," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125629, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:report:rp-21-14. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.