8th November 2026
Politicians at Westminster, Holyrood and local government regularly talk about economic growth. It has become one of the central promises of almost every administration, regardless of political party.
The Chancellor wants a faster-growing UK economy.
The Prime Minister promises investment, jobs and improved living standards. Scottish ministers have their own economic growth ambitions, while councils across the country publish strategies promising regeneration, new businesses and thousands of employment opportunities.
But there is an increasingly important question that deserves greater attention.
How much of this promised growth is actually supported by realistic financial commitments, identifiable investors and evidence that the projects being announced can be delivered?
There is no shortage of ambition. What is sometimes missing is the detail that allows the public to judge whether those ambitions are achievable.
Growth is easier to promise than deliver
Economic growth is a relatively simple political message. Everyone wants more investment, better-paid employment, successful businesses and stronger local economies.
However, achieving these objectives is considerably more difficult.
The UK's economic performance illustrates the challenge. The October 2026 forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects economic growth of around 1.25% in 2026, falling to approximately 1% in 2027.
The OBR also highlights the continuing importance of weak productivity, higher energy costs and uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook.
These are not the figures associated with a major economic transformation. They illustrate how difficult it can be to turn political ambitions into sustained economic improvements.
The Institute for Government has also questioned the way successive governments have approached growth policy. Its January 2026 analysis argued that economic strategies have often been expressed in broad terms without sufficiently confronting the difficult choices needed to deliver investment and improve productivity.
This raises an important issue. If national government struggles to turn its growth ambitions into measurable improvements, what realistic expectations should be placed on councils and local development organisations?
Billions announced, but how much is actually committed?
One of the problems with economic development announcements is the way investment figures are presented.
A government, council or development agency might announce that a programme could attract £500 million or even several billion pounds of investment.
But what does that figure actually represent?
There is a considerable difference between:
Money already committed and available.
Investment agreed in principle but awaiting final approval.
Projects with planning permission but no confirmed financing.
Private-sector investment that depends on future commercial decisions.
Projects that are simply opportunities being explored.
All may have a place in a development strategy, but they should not be presented as though they are equally certain.
A proposed investment programme can look impressive in a press release, yet the actual money entering the local economy might be considerably smaller.
The Government's infrastructure pipeline, updated in March 2026, identified 734 planned projects representing £718 billion of public and private investment over the following decade.
That is a substantial programme, but a pipeline of planned projects is not the same as £718 billion already spent or guaranteed. Delivery will depend on financing, planning, construction capacity, skills and commercial decisions.
The distinction matters because the public needs to understand what is genuinely happening rather than what might happen.
Jobs are another area where expectations need examining
Employment figures are frequently used to demonstrate the potential benefits of major developments.
But job announcements also need closer examination.
A construction project might employ hundreds of people for several years. That is valuable economic activity, but what happens when constructi on finishes?
How many permanent jobs remain? How many will go to people living locally? What wages will be paid? Will the jobs require specialist skills that the local workforce does not currently possess?
There is also a difference between new employment and jobs simply transferred from another location.
A development that creates 200 jobs in one town but results in 150 existing jobs moving from somewhere else does not necessarily represent 200 additional jobs for the wider economy.
Politicians should be expected to distinguish between temporary construction employment, permanent positions and wider estimates of jobs supported by investment.
The cost to the taxpayer is often overlooked
Another question receiving insufficient attention is the public expenditure required to support economic growth.
A major development may attract private investment, but it can also require public spending on roads, electricity connections, water supplies, schools, healthcare, housing and public transport.
These costs need to be included when assessing whether a project represents good value for money.
There may also be ongoing costs for councils and other public bodies once developments are completed.
For example, a substantial housing development might generate additional council tax income, but it will also increase demand for refuse collection, education, roads and other services.
Similarly, a new industrial development might create employment and business rates, but may require substantial infrastructure investment before the first business can operate.
None of this means projects should not proceed. It means the complete financial picture should be available before politicians claim that investment will automatically produce substantial benefits.
Local government faces the same challenge
This is particularly relevant to areas outside the major cities.
Councils often have ambitious economic development strategies, but their ability to deliver them depends on funding, private investors, infrastructure and the willingness of businesses to establish themselves locally.
Highland Council is one example where substantial development ambitions need to be examined against the practical realities of delivering projects across a very large geographical area.
Renewable energy, tourism, housing, transport, industrial development and the future of existing industries all offer opportunities.
However, identifying opportunities is only the beginning.
A proposed development needs financing, planning approval, infrastructure, skilled workers and a commercial reason for investors to proceed.
Rural areas also face particular difficulties. A company considering a major investment may look at transport connections, electricity capacity, access to labour, housing availability and the distance from suppliers and markets.
These factors can determine whether an attractive proposal becomes a working business or remains an ambition in a strategy document.
The same principles apply to councils elsewhere in Scotland, England and Wales.
The National Audit Office has previously highlighted weaknesses in the evidence supporting government programmes intended to stimulate local economic growth. Its examination of local growth funding found that a lack of consistent evaluation meant government did not always know whether earlier programmes had achieved their intended results.
That should be a warning for future investment strategies.
Five questions every growth strategy should answer
There is a straightforward way to improve public confidence in economic development announcements.
Every major growth strategy should be accompanied by a published assessment answering five questions.
First, how much money is actually secured? Announced investment should be separated from funding that is still speculative or dependent on future decisions.
Second, who is investing? Private-sector participation should be identified wherever possible, with clear information about whether commitments are binding.
Third, how many jobs will be created? Temporary and permanent employment should be reported separately, alongside expected wages and the timescale for recruitment.
Fourth, what will it cost the taxpayer? Infrastructure, public services, grants and ongoing expenditure should be included in the overall assessment.
Fifth, who is accountable for delivery? There should be published milestones, annual progress reports and independent assessments of whether promised results have materialised.
These should not be unreasonable demands. They are basic requirements for responsible management of public money.
Growth needs evidence, not just optimism
There is a danger that economic growth becomes a political slogan rather than a measurable objective.
Governments need ambition. Without it, investment opportunities can be missed and difficult economic problems can become entrenched.
But ambition must be accompanied by realistic planning.
The public should not have to wait five or ten years to discover that a much-publicised investment programme delivered only a fraction of what was originally promised.
Nor should politicians be able to move from one growth strategy to another without explaining why previous ambitions were not achieved.
This is not an argument against investment or economic development. It is an argument for greater transparency and accountability.
Whether the announcement comes from a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Scottish Government minister or a council leader, the same questions should apply.
How much money is committed? Where will it come from? What will it deliver? When will the benefits appear? And how will the public know whether the promises have been fulfilled?
Britain does not suffer from a shortage of growth strategies. It needs more convincing evidence that the ambitions contained in those strategies will translate into investment, productive businesses, secure employment and higher living standards.
Economic growth should be measured by what actually happens, not by the size of the promises made when a strategy is launched.