Title

Local flexibility a must for business support

Prof Henry Overman outlines the latest findings of the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth's review into business advice.

The What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth published its second evidence review this week looking at the effectiveness of business advice and mentoring. The review considered almost 700 policy evaluations and evidence reviews from the UK and other OECD countries.

It found 23 impact evaluations that met the Centre's minimum standards. This is a smaller evidence base than for our first review (on employment training) and is a very small base compared to some other policy areas (e.g. medicine, aspects of international development, and education).

Overall, of the 23 evaluations reviewed, 17 found positive impacts on at least one business outcome (such as productivity, employment or sales). Four evaluations found that business advice didn't work (had no statistically significant effects on any outcome) and two evaluations found that business advice might be harmful on one or more outcomes.
Some of the key messages that emerge from the review for local and national policy-makers include:
 
First, business advice programmes show consistently better results for productivity and output (GVA) than they do for employment. This may be because it's easier to help firms raise their productivity, or because productivity increases come first with employment gains seen in the longer run. 
 
Second, programmes that use a hands-on, ‘managed brokerage' approach may perform better than those using a ‘light touch' approach (although this conclusion is based on only one direct comparison study).
 
Taken at face value, this suggests that a strong relationship between advisor and client may be important to achieving positive programme outcomes. It is not clear, however, which of these two approaches is more cost-effective.
 
Third, many issues discussed in current debates are based on inconclusive evidence.  For example, we found no evidence that would suggest one level of delivery – national or local – is more effective than another. It is also difficult to reach any conclusions about the effectiveness of public-led vs. private-led delivery.
 
As should be clear from this review, there are also many scenarios where we still do not know much at all about the effectiveness of policy.  Given the current emphasis on value for money, there is clearly a clear need for more, consistent analysis of cost-effectiveness in business advice impact evaluations.
 
Further evaluations of this kind should be a priority for improving our understanding of what works in business advice. Local flexibility that allows for greater experimentation provides an ideal opportunity to undertake such evaluations.
 
We are starting conversations with a number of Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities about this. If you are interested in helping us experiment in this area and improve our understanding of what works, please don't hesitate to get in touch with the Centre
 
Henry Overman is Professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics
 

From duty to delivery

By Annabel Smith | 01 August 2025

Annabel Smith sets out how to effectively embed place-led collaboration.

A missed opportunity?

By Dawn Redpath | 31 July 2025

The Government must look beyond its heartlands in its efforts to drive growth, says Dawn Redpath.

Growing towards health

By Sharlene McGee | 31 July 2025

New devolution powers and local growth plans should lay the ground for health in all policies, not just some, says Sharlene McGee.

The Vale's bright future

By Rob Thomas | 31 July 2025

Vale of Glamorgan Council’s new strategic plan offers a destination and a transformational route map to take it through to the end of the decade. Rob Thomas ...

Popular articles by Henry Overman