Cities compete with each other. For more than fifty years, Public Choice Theory has explored the notion that cities compete to attract and retain residents and businesses. Likewise, the Public Finance & Tax Competition literature identifies competition between cities on tax-and-spend policies. The evidence base suggests 'inter-city competition increases the likelihood cities will pursue a limited strategy versus a balanced or more progressive approach'. In the transport sector, fiscal demand management policies such as road user charging, workplace parking levies and parking charges are therefore issues upon which cities may compete. Both residents and businesses are deeply concerned about the implications of changes to charging regimes. The negative impacts they foresee may in turn influence not only transport decisions, but also (in the long run) location decisions. Thus, there are indirect impacts on the local economy, which provides a stimulus for inter-city competition. Buchan (2008), reviewing policies to combat climate change impacts from transport, concluded that a nationally-imposed parking charge on new developments was necessary, in order 'to avoid local authority fears of destructive competition from neighbouring authorities'. Fiscal management of transport demand is therefore a clear potential source of competition between cities, yet there is little research to guide us on how strong this competition might be, how much of the competitive pressure is real or perceived, and how it should affect the design, implementation and overall effectiveness of fiscal demand management policies. Our research will study the issues surrounding the design and implementation of parking and charging policies looking more specifically at competing cities with the aim to answer the following policy questions :- In what ways do and could cities compete using fiscal demand management policies? How should cities design their policies to achieve individual and collective 'best' outcomes? Should cities consider sharing revenue streams - should they compete or co-operate? How significant are these policies to the redistribution of business and residents between cities? What, if any, implications do the results have for the co-ordination of demand management policies?The research will be based on a mix of in-depth interviews with selected cities and mathematical models of competition between cities covering both short term and long term dynamics and behaviour of relevant stakeholders.

The publication of the Beveridge Report in 1942, and the subsequent establishment of comprehensive welfare services in the UK, was referred to as 'a revolutionary moment'. The same term has been used to describe the current context in which welfare services are being dismantled in England. At these two transformational moments, fundamental questions have been raised about the respective roles and responsibilities of the state and the voluntary and community sector (VCS) in welfare services provision. During the 1st revolutionary moment (1940s) the Beveridge report proposed a series of measures to address the 'evils' of the time. The subsequent restructuring of welfare provision led to significant changes in the structure and focus of many VCS organisations, and a period of intense debate about the nature and extent of the voluntary action. In our current 'revolutionary moment' as a result of major national and international events the role of the VCS as a welfare service provider has intensified despite severe cuts to funding. A fundamental renegotiation of the role of the state is underway; we are entering a period of intense debate about the nature and extent of voluntary action and its relationship to the state and welfare provision. The overarching aim is to explore the debates that have taken place on the role of voluntary action in the provision of welfare in the 1940s and 2010s in England. It will compare and contrast popular, political and VCS discourses. In order to meet this aim, we address 3 sets of questions: 1.What are the similarities and differences in narratives about the role, position and contribution of the VCS in the provision of social welfare in the 1940s compared with the 2010s? And, drawing on social origins theory, what combination of factors, including but not restricted to the balance of class forces, can help account for shifting narratives between the 1940s and 2010s? 2.What are the similarities and differences within and between the narratives of voluntary sector representatives, government officials, and the general public about the role, position and contribution of the voluntary and community sector in social welfare provision, firstly during the 1940s and secondly through the 2010s? And, drawing on the theory of strategic action fields, to what extent and how do different narratives reflect field shaping discursive interventions and a changing configuration of actors? 3.What evidence is there of how different narratives have been constructed, articulated, contested, and circulated? And, drawing on discursive institutionalism, how are different narratives related to each other in the struggle for 'room' and 'common sense' during periods of unsettlement and transition, as actors seek to frame action and construct the possibilities for change? Our approach to addressing these questions is to explore: 1.Public narratives: analysis of Mass Observation directives on voluntary action and social welfare from 1940s 2010s, plus one commissioned in 2017. 2.State narratives: analysis of key government policy documents (e.g. green and white papers, acts of parliament), speeches and parliamentary debates relating to the role of the voluntary sector in welfare service provision in England generated during the 1940s and 2010s (accessed from The National Archives, Historic Hansard, Hansard and various websites). 3. Voluntary sector narratives: focusing on 4 VCS organisations (NCVO, Children England, NCVYS, Age UK) review key statements, policy documents, and publications produced by them in the 1940s and 2010s, stored in their archives and websites. This 2 year study co-produced with NCVO, NCVYS, Children England, Age UK and Mass Observation; guided by a project Steering Group; and involving various knowledge exchange activities will contribute to the development of VCS policy and practice, through building capabilities, enhancing the existing evidence base and reframing debat

The U.K. population is projected to reach 80 million by 2050 and it is anticipated that the overwhelming majority will continue to live in cities. Besides becoming more densely populated, future cities will be surrounded with expanding urban areas. Interactions within cities; across urban areas and with surrounding cities, towns and 'rural' areas with the rest of the UK will place new and different demands on infrastructure, whether housing, energy, transport, freight distribution and disposal of waste. Decisions that are made now will have profound implications for the resultant pressures on transport, living space, energy use, and ecosystem services (the benefits humans receive from ecosystems). These decisions will play out at two fundamentally different spatial scales. First, and by far the better understood, are those decisions that concern individual households and their neighbourhoods. These include issues of how their members move around, what kinds of housing they occupy, how their energy demands and waste production are reduced, and how their negative influences on the wider environment generally will be limited. Second, broad scale strategic decisions regarding regional planning will determine where in the U.K. population growth is primarily accommodated. This will determine, and be shaped by, the kinds of transport and energy infrastructure required, and the environmental impacts. Obviously these two sets of decisions are not independent. The demands for and impacts of broad scale development (whether this be the creation of new urban areas or the intensification of existing ones) - and thus how this is best achieved to deliver sustainability- will be influenced not by the typical demands and impacts exhibited now by households, but by the way in which these have been changed in response to the modification to the associated infrastructure. This makes for a challenging problem in predicting and evaluating the possible consequences of different potential scenarios of regional development. The proposed study SElf Conserving URban Environments (SECURE) will address this grand challenge of integration across scales (the global aim) by developing a range of future regional urbanization scenarios, and exploring their consequences for selected high profile issues of resource demand and provision (transport, dwellings, energy, and ecosystem services) alongside sustainable waste utilisations. In doing so, it will build on findings of research outputs of several previous SUE projects and harness its relationship in the context of policy and economic growth. The study includes specific research objectives under five broad cross-cutting themes - Urbanisation, Ecosystems Services, Building and Energy, Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Integration across themes. SECURE is designed to assemble novel deliverables to bring about step change in current knowledge and practice. The North East Region will be used as a test bed and evaluation of transitional scenarios leading up to 2050 will quantify the benefits of integration across the scales through conservation across the themes. SECURE will deliver policy formulation and planning decisions for 2030 and 2050 with a focus on creating Sustainable Urban Environment.The contributors to this project are researchers of international standings who have collaborated extensively on several EPSRC funded projects, including the SUE research since its inception. The SECURE team builds on their current collaboration on the SUE2 4M project. The Project consortium is led by Newcastle - Prof Margaret Bell as PI and Dr Anil Namdeo as co-ordinator alongside Dr Jenny Brake with academic partners: Prof David Graham (Environmental Engineering), Prof David Manning (Geosciences); from Loughborough: Prof Kevin Lomas, Prof Jonathan Wright and Dr Steven Firth (Civil and Building Engineering); from Sheffield: Prof Kevin Gaston and Dr Jonathan Leake (Animal and Plant Sciences).

Technological advances in Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, have already given rise to extensive socio-economic transformation and new and emerging technologies, such as distributed ledgers and the Internet of Things, are set to further revolutionise the information and service economy, and public services. Yet, technological innovation has the potential to also dis-benefit the most vulnerable, amplify existing forms of injustice and create new forms of exclusion in socio-economic life, thus further exacerbate socio-economic inequality and social division. That the whole of society benefits from progress in the Digital Economy is national priority, both morally and economically as those who are most vulnerable have the greatest need of opportunities for socio-economic participation. Taking a Social Justice approach, this NetworkPlus focuses on how the design of new and emerging technologies in the Digital Economy, and their application, can empower, emancipate and more equitably distribute opportunities for economic development to all citizens, consumers and employees. This EPSRC NetworkPlus: Social Justice through the Digital Economy aims to bring together and resource partners from academia, industry, government and civil society to understand, explore and respond, together, to the potential of new and emerging technologies to make the UK socio-economic life fairer for all. The NetworksPlus activities will focus on three challenge areas: Algorithmic Social Justice; Digital Security for All; Fairer Futures for Businesses and Workforces. Algorithmic Social Justice examines fairness in the design and application of AI algorithms in automated and semi-automated decision-making processes. It asks how can large data sets be classified and interpreted to inform, for example, care or health interventions programs or city planning and how can AI algorithms be made less opaque and criteria used to design them fairer and transparent. Digital Security for All investigates new and better ways to model digital security that increase people's sense of agency, while meeting their security needs and protection of assets in public and commercial online service delivery. For example, this challenge area asks in what ways can online services be designed to better support people's sense of agency and trust, while assuring security in sharing personal data online. Fairer Futures for Businesses and Workforces considers how new 'sharing economy' platforms can be designed to realise more ethical business models and equal opportunities for economic development. For example, this theme asks what platforms can be designed to support peer-to-peer markets places that cater for those who have little or no assets; and what are the implications for a fair workforce representation in the digital era. The NetworkPlus will enable new ways to support effective collaborations between academic and non-academic communities and organisations through a range of activities, including a curated series on events in the three thematic priorities and an innovative and more directed process of project commissioning. The NetworkPlus will deliver curated events and activities-including symposia, hands-on workshops, theory-hacks and design and development sprints, aiming to increase capacity, upskilling and foster trans-disciplinary dialogue, knowledge exchange between academic and non-academic communities as well as. The NetworkPlus will deliver a novel curated commissioning process of activities designed to support EPS doctoral researchers and Early Career Researchers developing impactful project proposals in partnership with industry, government, third sector and civil society.