In 2023, London had a gross domestic product of over 569 billion British pounds, by far the most of any region of the United Kingdom. The region of South East England which surrounds London had the second-highest GDP in this year, at over 360 billion pounds. North West England, which includes the major cities of Manchester and Liverpool, had the third-largest GDP among UK regions, at almost 250 billion pounds. Levelling Up the UK London’s economic dominance of the UK can clearly be seen when compared to the other regions of the country. In terms of GDP per capita, the gap between London and the rest of the country is striking, standing at over 63,600 pounds per person in the UK capital, compared with just over 37,100 pounds in the rest of the country. To address the economic imbalance, successive UK governments have tried to implement "levelling-up policies", which aim to boost investment and productivity in neglected areas of the country. The success of these programs going forward may depend on their scale, as it will likely take high levels of investment to reverse economic neglect regions have faced in the recent past. Overall UK GDP The gross domestic product for the whole of the United Kingdom amounted to 2.56 trillion British pounds in 2024. During this year, GDP grew by 0.9 percent, following a growth rate of 0.4 percent in 2023. Due to the overall population of the UK growing faster than the economy, however, GDP per capita in the UK fell in both 2023 and 2024. Nevertheless, the UK remains one of the world’s biggest economies, with just five countries (the United States, China, Japan, Germany, and India) having larger economies. It is it likely that several other countries will overtake the UK economy in the coming years, with Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, and Mexico all expected to have larger economies than Britain by 2050.

This data explores the knowledge base around productivity and its links to energy and wellbeing. The data was generated as part of a project that mapped and reviewed 1) links between energy and productivity and 2) wellbeing and productivity. The project used two forms of expert elicitation to guide a literature review and visualisation exercise. Experts in productivity, energy, productivity and wellbeing were surveyed. Initial participants were selected based on the networks of project researchers, and the ESRC. Recruitment then followed a snowballing methodology. In total, 58 people were invited to participate in the energy study. Of these 32 completed the survey, and 12 (not including research team members) attended the workshop. 53 people were invited to participate in the wellbeing study. Of these 20 completed the survey, and 7(not including research team members) attended the workshop. The surveys contain details of who the participants believe are key figures and key papers in energy/productivity/wellbeing research. The workshop outputs are visualisations of key relationships between energy/wellbeing /productivity by participants.

Productivity growth means getting more output from fewer inputs. It is a key goal of conventional economic policy. But ‘productivity growth’ is a vague concept and there are large gaps in our understanding of it. This ESRC funded project explores links between the different types of productivity and two major gaps: the relationship between energy and productivity, and wellbeing and productivity. The aim is to map the existing evidence base and guide future ESRC productivity research. Among policymakers and economists it is widely agreed that the UK has a ‘productivity problem’. In the UK, Labour productivity growth has been falling since the mid-1960s. This trend intensified after the financial crisis, when UK labour productivity growth collapsed altogether. Although the UK situation is particularly acute, it is not unusual. Falling labour productivity growth is seen in economies across the world. This could be because of changes in the nature of energy supply and demand over the last few decades. Energy is closely related to the key elements conventionally thought to impact productivity (such as technology), but could also be linked in less obvious ways. For example, changes in the structure of the economy (as we shift from manufacturing to services), gender and income inequalities, and the physical quality of energy itself may all play a role in mediating the energy-productivity relation. Properly understanding all these factors is essential, partly because we expect big changes in the energy base of the economy as we move to low-carbon energy sources. Falling productivity growth is considered a problem because in conventional economics productivity growth (particularly labour productivity growth) is thought to be linked to material standards of living. In this view as productivity growth falls, so does growth in material living standards. In the dominant political economy, reductions in the growth of material living standards are assumed to lead to reduced wellbeing. However, it is unclear just how strong the link between productivity growth and wellbeing actually is. Productivity growth does impact some parts material living standards, such as the distribution of income. However, its impact on these elements is mediated by other factors such as government policy. At the same time, it is also possible that an over focus on productivity growth could negatively impact societal wellbeing. For example, many activities that are key providers of societal wellbeing have low levels of productivity growth. Low labour productivity growth activities include health and social care, and education—all key sectors in terms of the economy’s ability to generate wellbeing. The relation between productivity growth and wellbeing is complex and underexplored.

Skilled Managers – Productive Workplaces (SMPW) was an ESRC-funded study, awarded under the Transforming Productivity, Management Practices and Employee Engagement call. SMPW focuses on the evaluation of impacts from an online training intervention that provides managers with the skills they need to handle complex and difficult workplace issues; exploring how the training intervention changes managers’ practice, the quality of their relationships with staff, and evaluating whether this translates into improved performance.

The project engages with a variety of UK-based organisations expressing interest in the research, to implement a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that randomly allocates all managers in distinct workplace units to receive an online training ‘treatment’ and other units to a ‘business as usual’ control.

There is a growing body of evidence that poor management is one of the main causes of low productivity. The UK government's recent Industrial Strategy noted that 'our managers are, on average, less proficient than many competitors' and therefore it has been argued that improving basic managerial competences is crucial if we are to solve the 'productivity puzzle'. However, the challenges facing line managers are becoming increasingly complex. In particular, the contemporary emphasis on more robust approaches to the management of performance makes it more likely that managers will find themselves having to have 'difficult conversations' and in conflict with their staff.

Workplace conflict is not only widespread but arguably inhibits workplace productivity by tying up valuable organisational resources. A CIPD survey found that over one-third of respondents had recent experience of conflict at work and it has been estimated that employees spend an average of 1.8 hours a week dealing with conflict, an annual loss of 370 million days. At the same time, the way in which managers handle conflict could have a significant impact on organisational performance by influencing levels of engagement; employees are more likely to be engaged if they feel that they are treated fairly and involved in decisions that affect them.

Although line managers play a crucial role in shaping experiences of work, there is growing evidence that they lack the skills needed to manage people effectively and identify, address and resolve difficult personnel issues. Therefore, training programmes designed to increase their capacity to deal with conflict could be one way of securing higher levels of employee engagement and improved productivity. Unfortunately, there has been no robust quantitative academic research in this area, making it difficult to build a persuasive business case for investment in conflict management competences.

This proposal aims to fill this gap by providing a detailed evaluation of the impact on engagement and productivity of 'conflict competence'. This will be conducted through a workplace trial of training interventions designed to develop the conflict resolution skills of line managers in a number of organisations in the private and public sectors. Working closely with the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) the project will trial two levels of skills development. The first will comprise of a one-day workshop designed to develop conflict resolution skills delivered to first-line managers. The second will add a further component by providing a more advanced two-day workshop to prepare senior leaders to provide support and coaching to their managers as they seek to navigate difficult personnel issues. The workshops will use a mediative model to develop the conflict competence of managers through key skills including listening, communication, influencing, reframing and negotiation, having difficult conversations and coaching.

The impact of each intervention will be tracked over a 12 month period by assessing the competence and confidence of managers, the experiences and attitudes of the employees they manage, the efficiency with which conflict is handled and measures of organisational productivity. This will be contextualised by interviews and focus groups to examine the processes through which productivity improvements are secured and also the potential barriers facing organisations.

The project will provide a valuable evidence base regarding the impact of training and development in conflict resolution skills. It not only aims to have a substantive impact on managerial competence within the case-study organisations but will also underpin the development of training tools which can be replicated in a range of organisational contexts. Furthermore, insights from the research will be shared with practitioner and policy-making communities through a comprehensive programme of dissemination and engagement.