What are we talking about, when we talk about Industrial Strategy?

This summer the government will publish it’s Industrial Strategy. It will be plan for growth, for the environment, for security, and for regenerating communities. 

All things that the country urgently needs, but can, and should Industrial Strategy deliver them all? 

In this paper we examine the different objectives that advocates of industrial strategy have today. We ask if government could choose what would it? And if it cannot, how should it manage such a complicated set of potentially contradictory goals and stakeholders.

Summary of the recommendations in this
paper:

• The forthcoming industrial strategy should be explicit about the relative weight of its priorities.
• It should not shy away from making decisions that are necessary but contrary to one or multiple of these priorities.
• But it should explain how the decision has or will be made, how the net benefit has been calculated and what mitigation for negative impact on the other priorities is possible.
• Strands should be defined within the strategy which prioritise one or two objectives above the others (The ones we have suggested are an example but obviously whatever meets the government’s needs is suitable).
• Adjustments should be made to both the metrics for success and political messaging around these strands to be clear about what is the priority.
• Sorting the chosen sub-sectors, and any forthcoming sub industrial strategies such as the critical mineral strategy, into these stands. This will involve readjusting (or pre-adjusting) the criteria of success for those projects and the way government communicates about them.