By Raquel Ortega-Argilés and Fátima García Elena
This blog introduces the first edition of the TPI Productivity Scorecards and Dashboards for Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs), which provide an in-depth analysis of their productivity performance and drivers.
Introduction: Mayoral Combined Authorities
The UK’s Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) are collaborative regional governance structures formed by neighbouring local councils to address shared strategic priorities, such as economic growth, transport, housing, and infrastructure. Established under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, Combined Authorities allow regions to pool resources and decision-making powers, often benefiting from devolved powers and funding from the central government. This model aims to enhance local accountability, streamline governance, and support tailored regional development. Devolution empowers local governments to tailor policies, improve governance, attract investment, and support innovation and workforce development. These factors collectively enhance local productivity and contribute to sustainable economic growth.
Understanding the economic performance of MCAs can help to identify policies and strategies that have led to regional prosperity and economic growth. The TPI Productivity Lab has created a series of resources presenting a set of productivity-related indicators, among them GVA per hour worked or high skilled labour force, for each MCA, to make data available to the public interested in learning about MCAs’ productivity performance and its main drivers.
Mayoral Combined Authorities definitions
To enhance our understanding of the administrative units within the MCA delimitations, we have developed a conversion table that effectively groups ITL3 administrative areas into the respective UK MCA units. This will enable us to compile valuable insights from official data sources regarding the performance of various productivity drivers across different MCAs. It is essential to recognise that there may be considerable differences in population and productivity levels in these regions. By considering these factors in our comparisons of MCA-level data, we can foster more accurate and meaningful analyses.
Table 1. ITL3 disaggregation by MCA
Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) | Subregional administrative areas (ITL3) |
Greater Manchester | Manchester, Greater Manchester South West, Greater Manchester South East, Greater Manchester North West, Greater Manchester North East |
South Yorkshire | Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham; Sheffield |
West Yorkshire | Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale and Kirklees, Wakefield |
Liverpool City Region | East Merseyside, Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral |
Tees Valley | Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees, South Teesside, Darlington |
West Midlands | Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton |
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough | Peterborough, Cambridgeshire CC |
West of England | City of Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire |
York and North Yorkshire | York, North Yorkshire CC |
East Midlands | Derby, East Derbyshire, South and West Derbyshire, Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, South Nottinghamshire |
North East | Durham CC, Northumberland, Tyneside, Sunderland |
London | Camden and City of London, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth, Hackney and Newham, Tower Hamlets, Haringey and Islington, Lewisham and Southwark, Lambeth, Bexley and Greenwich, Barking & Dagenham and Havering, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, Enfield, Bromley, Croydon, Merton, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton, Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Harrow and Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames |
Source: TPI own elaboration
Mayoral Combined Authorities – General Productivity Trends
We start our analysis by illustrating the interregional and intraregional variations in productivity levels and productivity trends in UK MCAs since the economic recession.
There is a noticeable variation in productivity levels and growth across the English MCAs, as shown in Figure 1. According to the latest MCA productivity performance figures, the Greater London Authority presents the highest productivity among the twelve MCAs, with a Gross Value Added (GVA) per hour worked of £50.40 – a measure of the value of goods and services produced per hour of labour. This is followed by Cambridgeshire-Peterborough and the West of England. In contrast, South Yorkshire presented the lowest productivity level in 2022, with a value of £31.40. This ranking in productivity performance remained consistent throughout the years of our analysis, 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Figure 1. MCA Productivity Performance, ITL3 detail 2008-2022.
Analysing the performance of their productivity drivers can help explain these productivity differences across MCAs. Figure 2 presents the percentage change of key indicators for each MCA from 2020 to 2022.
Figure 2. Productivity Drivers Performance, MCA, 2020-2022.
Note: Low-skilled labour shows a large increase due to the change in the definition of Low-Skilled Workers in the last ONS data release.
Figure 2 shows that northern MCAs such as Liverpool or Manchester show a positive performance trend towards meeting the UK sub-national average, suggesting some convergence. Meanwhile, the two MCAs in the Midlands are falling behind. This underscores a distinct geographical divide between the North and the Midlands, warranting further investigation to comprehend the North’s successes and the Midlands’ potential opportunities.
Mayoral Combined Authority Productivity Drivers – General comments
Our TPI MCA productivity scorecards and dashboards allow us to analyse the performance of specific subnational productivity drivers. The factors influencing MCA regional productivity can be categorised into four main groups: (1) business performance; (2) skills and training; (3) health and wellbeing; and (4) investment, infrastructure, and connectivity.
Figure 3. TPI MCA Productivity Scorecards, indicators detail.
Note: For more information, look at the sources and methods document.
Figure 4 reflects the latest data available for each indicators representing a particular driver. The indicators for each MCA illustrate the differences at the ITL3 level and compare them to the weighted average of each MCA. The comparisons highlight the consistently low performance of certain subregional areas where improvements could be made.
Figure 4. MCA Productivity Drivers Scorecard, 2022.
Notes: Green represents values higher than 105% of the UK average, yellow represents values between 95% and 105% of the UK average, and red represents values lower than 95% of the UK average.
Source: The Productivity Institute.
The figures indicate that the Greater London Authority performed above the regional UK average in nearly all productivity drivers, except for the Health and Wellbeing Indicator, which showed an average performance on the share of the active population.
Performance varies more significantly outside the Greater London Authority. Notably, the MCA areas that are geographically closer to Greater London—specifically Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, as well as the West of England—demonstrate moderate to good performance relative to the average for the UK in indicators related to skills, training, investment, infrastructure, and connectivity. However, the indicators concerning business performance and health and well-being present a more mixed picture.
Looking beyond the extended London and South area, the other nine MCAs present a markedly different picture. According to the latest indicators on export intensity – the percentage of goods and services exported relative to the total output – for 2020 and 2021, the East Midlands and Tees Valley outperform the other northern and midlands combined authorities, all of which have underperformed relative to the UK average. Regions with higher export intensity often have more competitive and productive economies.
New business creation, which measures the rate at which new businesses are established, reflects the dynamic and entrepreneurial environment in the local economy. While it remains a concern for many regions, trends over the years under analysis show improvement. Notably, the Liverpool City Region has the highest rate of new business creation among northern areas during this period. In contrast, York and North Yorkshire have the lowest rates of new business and export intensity, indicating potential areas for improvement in the local business environment and competitiveness.
Our findings reveal a significant disparity in the availability of high-skilled workers – the percentage of the workforce with high-level qualifications – between the three leading CAs and the others regarding skills and training. Economies with a more skilled workforce are generally more productive. This indicator has not shown notable improvement over time, which is a significant concern. The Greater London Authority maintains the highest percentage in the three analysed years (an average of 58.8%), while Tees Valley presents the lowest percentage, around 33.2%.
Health and Well-Being shows significant disparities between the indicators. The percentage of the working-age population that is employed or actively seeking employment in the active workforce does not raise major concerns. Most MCAs are within a narrow range of the UK average which was more than 80% in 2022. However, issues of concern for this driver are linked to the persistently higher levels of inactive population due to illness in the Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, North East and South Yorkshire.
The data for infrastructure and connectivity, which are for 2020, show that the capital city and the surrounding areas have greater access to high-speed internet (4G and Fibre connectivity), which is crucial for modern businesses and productivity. Additionally, these areas show major investment in physical assets (gross Fixed Capital Formation per job) such as buildings, machinery and infrastructure.
Investment drivers, such as ICT investment (investment in information and communication technology per job) and intangible investment (investment in non-physical assets like software, patents and trademarks per job), are also important drivers to consider.
In summary, the scorecards generally show that the Greater London Combined Authority ranks the highest in most categories, indicating strong productivity and infrastructure provision. South Yorkshire and Tees Valley often rank lower, suggesting areas for improvement in productivity and connectivity.
Figure 5 presents an example of a TPI MCA Productivity dashboard.
Figure 5. TPI MCA Productivity Dashboard, Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
Final thoughts
Several key factors influence the productivity scores for the English MCAs. These include economic performance, competitiveness, entrepreneurial and business environment, investment opportunities, infrastructure deployment, skills and training, and health and well-being.
Our analysis indicates that MCAs across England present very different pictures when describing productivity performance, opportunities and challenges at the sub-national level. Investigating these factors demonstrates that they are interrelated and collectively influence the productivity scores of the combined authorities. Regions that perform well across these metrics tend to have higher productivity levels and growth, while those that lag in one or more areas often have lower scores.
This analysis potentially also enables the identification of best practices and success stories from which underperforming regions can learn, and it can point to avenues for possible joint initiatives between MCAs to support each other. For example, while Liverpool City Region hosts higher local business creation rates, York and North Yorkshire face challenges in enabling new business creation. York and North Yorkshire can draw inspiration from Liverpool’s approach to fostering innovation hubs and support networks that connect startups with established businesses, investors, and local universities. The two regions could also collaborate on joint initiatives, such as regional trade fairs or shared business incubator programmes, to stimulate entrepreneurship and knowledge exchange.
One important factor not included in our TPI MCA Productivity Scorecards and Dashboards here but present in other TPI scorecards for the UK or Northern Ireland is the contribution of policies and institutions. Subnational areas can enhance productivity outcomes by ensuring high-quality governance and strong institutions. This involves implementing place-based policies, which include long-term strategies tailored to the local economy and development needs.
Place-based productivity initiatives include, among others:
Improving the business environment by addressing economic, infrastructural, and social factors. Key focus areas include enhancing infrastructure by investing in transportation networks and improving digital connectivity to support businesses and remote work.
Streamlining regulations by encouraging business creation and entrepreneurial activity by reducing bureaucratic red tape, simplifying processes for starting and operating businesses, and helping build trust among business owners.
Promoting research and development through grants and partnerships with universities; and establishing business incubators to provide startups with essential resources and mentorship.
Developing human capital through education and vocational training programs with local institutions to create a resilient, skilled workforce that meets local businesses’ needs. Additionally, promoting continuous learning will allow local workers to adapt to changing job requirements.
Fostering a local competitive market by implementing policies that encourage competition and improve access to financing for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Enhancing the quality of life through investments in healthcare and affordable housing will attract and retain talent in the region.
Building industry clusters to boost local productivity and innovation, encouraging effective collaboration through university-industry collaboration, and supporting public-private partnerships. Local and regional governments can also promote sustainability through green initiatives and support a circular economy to help reduce regional waste and environmental impact.
Local governments should focus on attracting private and foreign investment into local infrastructure. This involves offering practical guidance for councils to navigate the infrastructure investment landscape and secure necessary funding that serves the purposes of the local stakeholders.
In terms of connectivity, in the UK, efforts are being made to empower communities to take charge of their connectivity. Community Broadband initiatives allow residents to collectively invest in and manage local internet infrastructure, providing a sustainable model for improving connectivity. This is key because connectivity is instrumental in adopting innovative practices and supporting the integration of digital technologies. Understanding the interplay between connectivity, innovation, and digital infrastructure is essential for effectively driving the growth of highly productive industrial sectors and enhancing regional competitiveness.
By focusing on these strategies, regions can enhance their business environment, fostering growth and productivity in the short and long term. See the TPI Productivity Forums’ latest reports linked below, as well as the Regional Productivity Agenda for more information about regional and local initiatives.
TPI Insights Papers 2025
Yorkshire, the Humber and the North East
For more information, visit the TPI Productivity Lab.