Re-embedding Industry: Reconstructing the Spatial Economy of the West Midlands, the Manufacturing Belt 2.0

From Disconnection to Deliberate Reconfiguration

Executive summary

The West Midlands—centred on Birmingham—is often described as a textbook case of British deindustrialisation. Standard explanations emphasise globalisation, automation, and the shift towards a service-based economy. While these factors are significant, they do not fully explain the scale or spatial specificity of the region’s industrial decline.

This article argues that deindustrialisation in the West Midlands was not only an economic process, but a spatial one. It reflects a progressive disconnection between capital, labour, and ownership, compounded by planning decisions and infrastructural interventions that fragmented a historically coherent production system.

Birmingham’s industrial strength once lay in its dense, highly localised network of small and medium-sized firms—the “city of a thousand trades.” This system depended on proximity, repetition, and the circulation of tacit knowledge. Its decline cannot be understood without recognising how post-war planning, land-use change, and the prioritisation of mobility disrupted these relationships.

Building on this diagnosis, this article proposes Manufacturing Belt 2.0 as a spatial-economic strategy to re-embed industrial production. Rather than focusing on sectors alone, this framework emphasises the reconstruction of relational infrastructures: land, energy, capital, and governance systems that allow production to function territorially.

The central argument is that regions which have experienced the deepest forms of disconnection may also hold the greatest potential for recombination. The West Midlands should therefore be understood not as a lagging region, but as a transitional landscape—capable of constructing a new industrial logic aligned with contemporary economic and geopolitical conditions.

1. Introduction: Deindustrialisation as spatial disarticulation

Over the past four decades, the relationship between capital, labour, and ownership has undergone a profound transformation. Capital has become increasingly mobile, circulating across global markets with limited attachment to place[1]. Labour, by contrast, remains territorially embedded, structured by local labour markets and regional skill systems[2]. Ownership has shifted from a socially embedded relation—historically tied to place and production—to a financialised and often abstract construct[3].

This decoupling lies at the heart of deindustrialisation across the UK[4]. However, in the West Midlands—and particularly in Birmingham—it was not simply a passive outcome of global forces. It was actively shaped by spatial and political decisions.

Historically, Birmingham functioned as one of Europe’s most distinctive industrial systems. Unlike cities dominated by large-scale manufacturing, it developed through a dense network of small and medium-sized firms specialising in metalworking, components, and precision goods[5]. This system was highly adaptive, with firms able to reconfigure production quickly in response to changing demand.

Crucially, this flexibility depended on spatial proximity. As Alfred Marshall observed, industrial districts rely on the circulation of tacit knowledge—“the mysteries of the trade” embedded within place[6]. In Birmingham, this took the form of tightly interwoven production networks, supported by shared labour markets and localised supply chains.

From the 1950s onwards, however, this spatial coherence was progressively dismantled. Large-scale road infrastructure—most notably the Birmingham Inner Ring Road—restructured the city around vehicular movement rather than productive proximity. Zoning practices separated industrial, residential, and commercial uses, weakening the mixed-use environments that had sustained small-scale manufacturing. Clearance programmes removed historic industrial areas, often without re-establishing equivalent production capacity elsewhere.

These changes were accompanied by national economic policies that accelerated the shift towards services, particularly from the 1980s onwards. Manufacturing was not systematically adapted or upgraded, but instead exposed to global competition without sufficient support.

The result was not simply industrial decline, but the fragmentation of a previously coherent spatial-economic system. Deindustrialisation in Birmingham can therefore be understood as spatial disarticulation: the breakdown of the territorial relationships that once enabled production to function.

2. From fragmentation to opportunity

While deindustrialisation is often framed as a process of loss, it also creates a condition of structural openness. Where relationships between capital, labour, and ownership have been loosened, they may be reconfigured.

In the West Midlands, several conditions typically viewed as weaknesses can instead be understood as latent capacities. The region retains a significant manufacturing base—accounting for a higher share of employment than the UK average (ONS, 2023). It also maintains deep reservoirs of technical knowledge, particularly in automotive engineering, materials, and advanced manufacturing.

At the same time, the region possesses substantial spatial assets. Large areas of brownfield land remain available, particularly in former industrial zones. Its central location within the UK positions it as a key logistics and distribution hub.

The challenge is that these elements are no longer aligned. Industrial firms, labour markets, research institutions, and infrastructure networks operate in relative isolation from one another. This reflects what relational economic geographers such as Ash Amin describe as the weakening of place-based economic networks[7].

The task is therefore not simply to stimulate economic activity, but to reconstruct the spatial relationships that enable it. Industrial policy must move beyond sectoral interventions towards a more integrated approach that addresses land, infrastructure, and institutional coordination.

3. Manufacturing Belt 2.0: A spatial-economic framework

The concept of Manufacturing Belt 2.0 provides a framework for this reconstruction. It builds on established insights from industrial district theory[8], cluster theory[9], and global value chain analysis[10], but reinterprets them through a spatial lens.

Rather than a single industrial zone, the Belt is conceived as a polycentric production system. It links multiple nodes across the West Midlands, each specialising in different segments of value chains.

• Birmingham functions as a coordination hub, hosting advanced services, research institutions, and innovation capacity.

• Coventry anchors electrification and advanced manufacturing.

• The Black Country and Wolverhampton provide dense production capacity and supply chain expertise.

These nodes are connected through infrastructure, logistics, and knowledge flows, forming a relational production landscape.

A key shift is the move from sector-based thinking to a value chain approach[11]. Rather than focusing on industries in isolation, the Belt seeks to capture and align multiple stages of production—from design and prototyping to assembly, maintenance, and recycling.

In practice, this requires:

• Reassembling production geographiesFor example, linking battery production, vehicle assembly, and recycling within a regional system, rather than dispersing them across global supply chains.

• Strategic land useBrownfield sites must be prioritised for industrial use. This involves active land assembly, long-term planning, and restrictions on speculative redevelopment.

• Infrastructure alignmentTransport and logistics networks must support interdependence between production nodes, rather than simply facilitating external flows.

• Energy integrationIndustrial clusters should be co-located with energy infrastructure, including grid upgrades and emerging hydrogen networks (IEA, 2022).

At the core of this model lies the concept of “sticky capital”[12]: investment that is anchored in place and oriented towards long-term productive use. This directly addresses the challenges posed by financialisation, which has prioritised short-term returns over industrial stability[13].

The Manufacturing Belt can thus be understood as a deliberate attempt to restore alignment between spatial form and economic function—adapting Birmingham’s historical strengths to contemporary conditions.

4. Governance and institutional re-embedding

The emergence of a Manufacturing Belt 2.0 requires active governance.

At the regional level, stronger coordination is needed to align infrastructure, land use, and economic strategy. Institutions such as the West Midlands Combined Authority could play a central role, but would require enhanced capacity and a clearer mandate.

At the site level, development corporations can be used to assemble land, manage long-term leases, and structure investment. Examples from London Docklands and elsewhere demonstrate the potential of such models.

At the ecosystem level, collaboration between firms, universities, and training institutions is essential. This reflects the institutional embeddedness observed in successful regions such as Baden-Württemberg[14].

Without such coordination, spatial fragmentation is likely to persist.

5. A European Perspective: Transitional regions and strategic autonomy

Comparisons with other European regions highlight both the challenges and opportunities facing the West Midlands.

Northern Italy and Southern Germany represent highly embedded industrial systems, characterised by dense networks and strong institutional frameworks[15]. These systems evolved incrementally over decades.

By contrast, regions in Northern France—particularly around Lille and Valenciennes—have undergone trajectories more similar to the West Midlands. Following the decline of coal, steel, and textiles, these regions have pursued state-supported reindustrialisation strategies.

Recent developments include:

• battery gigafactories in Hauts-de-France

• logistics platforms linked to European supply chains

• ntegration of industrial policy with energy transition

These initiatives have been supported by strong national coordination and European funding.

This reflects a broader shift in European industrial policy towards strategic autonomy[16]. The focus has moved towards securing production capacity in critical sectors, reducing dependency on global supply chains, and aligning industrial development with climate goals.

Strategic autonomy reframes industrial policy as a spatial question. It emphasises:

• the location of production

• the structure of value chains

• the resilience of regional economies

In this context, the West Midlands can be understood as a transitional region. Its lack of institutional lock-in creates space for new forms of industrial organisation.

6. Conclusion: Industrial futures as spatial projects

Reindustrialisation is not a return to past forms of manufacturing, but a spatial project.

The experience of Birmingham demonstrates that industrial decline is not only driven by global economic forces, but also by the disarticulation of spatial-economic systems.

Rebuilding requires:

• re-embedding capital

• redefining ownership

• strengthening labour within territorial systems

Manufacturing Belt 2.0 provides a framework for this realignment.

The central challenge is to move from fragmentation to coherence—from disconnected assets to an integrated production system.

7. Some modest recommendations

 The analysis presented in this article points to a clear conclusion: reindustrialisation in the West Midlands is not simply a matter of sectoral growth, but of spatial and institutional reconfiguration. The region’s challenge lies in overcoming decades of fragmentation by rebuilding the relationships between land, infrastructure, capital, and production systems.

The following policy recommendations translate this spatial-economic perspective into a set of concrete interventions. Together, they aim to move from a condition of disconnection towards a deliberately structured and territorially embedded industrial system.

1. Designate and protect industrial land

Introduce formal protection for strategic industrial sites, preventing speculative conversion and ensuring long-term availability.

2. Strengthen regional governance

Enhance coordination capacity at the regional level, aligning land use, infrastructure, and economic strategy.

3. Develop place-based investment vehicles

Create mechanisms to anchor capital locally, including public-private funds tied to industrial development.

4. Align energy and industry

Prioritise co-location of industrial clusters and energy infrastructure.

5. Focus on value chains

Target strategic segments of production systems rather than individual sectors.

6. Support industrial ecosystems

Invest in collaboration between firms, universities, and training institutions.

7. Deploy development corporations

Use site-based governance tools to assemble land and structure long-term investment.

8. Position within strategic autonomy agendas

Align regional strategy with broader European trends in industrial policy and supply chain resilience.

8. Epilogue: From Vision to Institution

After reading the 10 Years of Impact by Ed Cox, Chief Exec WMCA, 16 June 2026

When I first began exploring the idea of a Midlands Manufacturing Belt 2.0, it was tempting to see the concept primarily through the lens of economic geography. The West Midlands appeared to possess all the ingredients necessary for a new era of industrial renaissance: world-class universities, a deep manufacturing heritage, a strategic location at the heart of England, emerging strengths in advanced engineering and battery technologies, and a labour market large enough to support innovation at scale.

Yet economic geography alone is never enough.

The history of industrial regions teaches us that productive ecosystems do not thrive simply because assets exist. They flourish when institutions, infrastructure, skills, housing and political leadership align around a common purpose. This may be the most important lesson emerging from the first decade of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA).

Reflecting on ten years of the Combined Authority, Chief Executive Ed Cox did not focus primarily on governance structures or constitutional reform. Instead, he highlighted five themes: people, housing, connectivity, health and regional confidence. At first glance these may appear disconnected from industrial strategy. In reality they are precisely the foundations upon which successful manufacturing regions are built.

A modern manufacturing belt is not merely a concentration of factories. It is a functioning metropolitan ecosystem. Skilled workers need access to affordable housing. Firms need access to talent. Universities need strong links to industry. Transport networks must connect labour markets rather than simply move passengers. Health inequalities must be addressed because economic productivity depends upon human wellbeing. Above all, a region must possess sufficient confidence to tell its own story and attract investment, talent and ambition.

Seen in this light, the WMCA represents something more significant than a governance innovation. It has become the institutional framework through which the West Midlands is gradually rebuilding the conditions that once made Birmingham and its surrounding towns one of the most productive industrial regions in the world.

The lesson is not that the work is complete. Far from it. Productivity remains below that of many European competitors. Skills shortages persist. Housing delivery must accelerate further. And the wider Midlands economy extends beyond the boundaries of the Combined Authority itself, encompassing a broader constellation of cities including Coventry, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester.

Yet there is a growing sense that the region has moved beyond managing decline. The debate is increasingly about growth, investment and opportunity rather than regeneration alone.

Perhaps that is the real significance of the first decade of the WMCA. It suggests that the Midlands Manufacturing Belt is no longer merely an historical memory or an academic concept. It is becoming a strategic project around which institutions, businesses and civic leaders are beginning to organise.

The challenge for the decade ahead is to ensure that this emerging metropolitan ecosystem becomes not only more productive, but also more inclusive, more sustainable and more confident in its place within Europe and the wider world.

For those who have long believed in Birmingham's potential, that may be the most encouraging development of all.

[1] Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell; Sassen, S. (2001) The Gobal City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[2] Martin, R. (2010) “Rethinking Regional Path Dependency.” Economic Geography, 86(1).

[3] Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press; Christophers, B. (2020) Rentier Capitalism. Verso.

[4] Martin, R. & Rowthorn, B. (1986) The Geography of Deindustrialisation; Fothergill, S. & Guy,N. (1990).

[5] Allen, G.C. (1929); Briggs, A. (1952).

[6] Marshall, A. (1920) [1890] Principles of Economics.

[7] Amin, A. (2004); Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002).

[8] Becattini, G. (1990).

[9] Porter,M. (1998).

[10] Gereffi et al. (20025).

[11] Porter, M. (1985).

[12] Martin, R. (2010).

[13] Christophers, B. (2014).

[14] Herrigel, G. (2015) Globalization and the German Industrial System.

[15] Becattini (1990) and see 14

[16] European Commission (2021;2023).