TY - JOUR

T1 - The politics of freeports

T2 - A place-based analysis of regional economic regeneration in the United Kingdom

AU - Cotton, Matthew

AU - Tyfield, David

AU - Gray, Nicholas

AU - Yuille, Andy

PY - 2023/9/30

Y1 - 2023/9/30

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Freeports

KW - UK regional development

KW - Levelling Up

KW - cycles of hype

KW - special economic zones

KW - critical policy analysis

U2 - 10.1177/02690942241239014

DO - 10.1177/02690942241239014

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

SP - 562

EP - 581

JO - Local Economy

JF - Local Economy

SN - 0269-0942

IS - 6

ER -