It was initially agreed that there has been much debate and often concern about the potential adverse effects of international competition and globalisation on the UK economy. Three broad areas of concern were highlighted: the establishment of a new financial regulator and Bank of England independence; the Government's decision not to join the Euro and fears associated with the increasing economic power of Brussels; and concern that the technological shift towards virtual financial trading markets would devalue London as a physical centre of expertise and innovation.

However it was argued that all these concerns had in fact proved unfounded, and that London still retains numerous competitive advantages such as a robust regulatory approach which does not impose excessive costs on business. Furthermore, despite the exponential development of new technologies and the advent of virtual trading, place still seems to matter most, and London still offers an unrivalled concentration of expertise and skills. The legal system was also highlighted as an integral advantage, and seen as world class with a tradition of fairness and integrity.

The increasing expansion of the EU was also argued to be overwhelmingly beneficial for the UK economy, creating new opportunities for firms, and a common voice for the major European powers which gives both the UK and EU as a whole greater global negotiating power. The protectionist backlash to globalisation was argued to be wholly destructive, and deconstructive. One participant noted the importance of links between principal financial centres, and transport was seen as especially crucial. Participants emphasised the need for spending to be smart and focussed, with targeted expenditures to tackle particular problems such as congestion, and simultaneously the wider environmental objectives surrounding transport policy.

The further development of skills was also seen as essential if the UK is to retain a competitive advantage, with employers needing prospective employees to have a basic level of qualification which they can then build upon. One participant argued that the government should pay for training and education up to the point where firms could then take over. Within this debate rights and responsibilities were also seen as fundamental; the responsibility lying with both employees and employers to take up and promote training opportunities. The notion of responsibility also extended to the relationship between government and business, and the improvement of the relationship and increased understanding between both sectors – the area of tax and regulation was seen as a particular area within which to foster improvement.

Questions were also raised around the issue of private equity, and it was argued that private equity should not be understood simply in black and white terms of good or bad, as in reality some firms are hugely beneficial to the economy, whilst others have a negative impact. Instead the focus should be on how systemic risks in private equity should be properly policed, and how long term investment in the UK economy should be promoted, something that good private equity firms can achieve.

Back to UK Competitiveness in a Global Economy