top of page
Search

Careers in local economic development: voices of the future

Writer: David Marlow
David Marlow
Oct 29
5 min read

At first glance, an episode about career journeys might seem an odd fit for a policy moment dominated by devolution, rewiring the state, and Government's determination to deliver inclusive growth in every postcode. But after listening to three early-career economists (ECEs) compare notes on how they entered the profession, what helps them thrive, and what they think comes next, I came away convinced that this episode can be read equally as a capacity story. Because every Local Growth Plan, every Strategic Authority, every investment programme and every inclusive growth ambition eventually comes down to people: real people with the skills, judgement and relationships needed to turn ideas into action.


Team of coworkers in a modern office meeting around laptops; one man gestures while others listen and take notes near a whiteboard

In this very special LEDConfidential episode, Mike and I largely stepped back and let three ECEs – William Hamilton (Asian Development Bank), Megan Smith (AMION) and Luke Green (Insights North East, Newcastle University) – compare experiences across international development, consultancy and policy-facing academia. What emerged was part careers discussion, and part reflection on the future of local economic development itself.


At least five things are worth pulling out of the conversation and pushing further.


1. The profession is still far too hard to find


Perhaps the most striking observation was that none of our guests had followed a carefully mapped route into local economic development. In different ways, all three described careers shaped by curiosity, chance opportunities and keeping options open. Luke Green went so far as to say that he didn't find local economic development; "it found me". Megan Smith only discovered economic development consultancy after university, while William Hamilton's route took him through international development and government advisory work.

At a time when talent shortages are being reported across planning and placemaking, and Strategic Authorities are being asked to build analytical capacity at scale, that should concern us. A profession that people struggle to discover is unlikely to build the pipeline it needs.


We need to stop assuming graduates know our profession exists and find ways to showcase the sheer variety of experiences and pathways available to what we do. And not just to economists, but to geographers, planners, social scientists and many others.


2. We're all economic geographers now


One of Luke's most memorable observations was that "we're all economic geographers now." Contemporary policy is increasingly revolving around place, scale, governance and the relationship between them.


We have recognised geographical inequality for decades, but the current government's offer for addressing it requires new and stronger sub-national capabilities to lead and govern it more effectively. Devolution, Strategic Authorities, place-based growth plans and inclusive growth agendas all require people who can think spatially and understand how national priorities interact with local realities.


Technical economics remains essential, especially perhaps for Will and institutions like Development Banks. But understanding places and how they function increasingly matters just as much. The strongest LED teams will increasingly combine economists, geographers, planners, data specialists and community practitioners around shared challenges, able to moderate disciplinary purity for intellectual curiosity and collaboration.


3. Translating evidence into activity with impact needs to be learnt


Luke’s comment that “academic research is hard; policy is harder” is reassuringly self-deprecating from the academic pathway. Turning ideas into action that deliver real impact is often the ultimate intellectual as well as practical challenge. It is what has driven him towards academic-policy exchange and is an area of increasing focus in LED and placemaking.


This resonates far beyond universities. Sub-national government, consultancies and development agencies face versions of the same challenge. The question isn't simply whether evidence exists. It's whether evidence can be translated into decisions, programmes and outcomes. A better Academy can help us do it but it also has to be part of the day jobs of ECEs on the other pathways. Don't leave ECEs permanently in analytical support roles: judgement develops fastest when evidence meets real-world constraints.


4. Inclusive growth begins with asking who benefits


One of the strongest threads running through the conversation came from Megan's reflections on economic consultancy. Major investments, impressive GVA figures and large job creation numbers tell only part of the story. The important associated question is who actually benefits from growth.


Do local residents possess the skills to access new opportunities? Will local firms participate in supply chains? Can communities realistically connect to the benefits being promised?

These are no longer peripheral questions. They sit at the heart of today's policy agenda.

For practitioners navigating devolution and place-based growth programmes, demonstrating which people and neighbourhoods growth reaches matters for any promise of “growth in every postcode”. What was interesting for Luke, Megan, and William is how much this was learnt on the job rather than necessarily taught in their formal economics training.


5. AI will raise the value of judgement not eliminate it


No conversation with younger professionals in 2026 can avoid artificial intelligence, and the discussion here was refreshingly balanced. Nobody argued that AI was irrelevant. Equally, nobody assumed it would replace local economic development professionals.


The consensus was that AI will increasingly handle routine data gathering, processing and analysis. The challenge is that much of that groundwork has traditionally been how people learn their craft. If machines undertake more of the mechanics, organisations must become more deliberate about how they develop judgement.


The answer, interestingly, may involve more human contact rather than less. More stakeholder engagement. More community conversations. More exposure to ambiguity and competing perspectives.


As Megan and Luke argued, future value will lie increasingly in interpretation, communication and understanding context. But if AI is reducing technical learning opportunities, this needs to be replaced with stakeholder-facing experiences. The next generation needs judgement, not just productivity.


Concluding remarks


Perhaps the biggest lesson from this episode is that developing talent is more than a human resources issue. Today it is as much a strategic capability issue.


Government can create new devolved institutions. It can announce local growth plans, integrated settlements and inclusive growth missions but those ambitions ultimately depend on whether places have people capable of delivering them.


The encouraging news is that the future appears to be in good hands. Listening to Luke, Megan, and William, I was struck by their thoughtfulness, curiosity and willingness to work across traditional boundaries.


The challenge for the rest of us is making sure more people like them find the profession, stay in it, and are given the space to flourish.


If this episode prompts you to rethink how your organisation recruits, supports or develops early-career talent, then it will have achieved something worthwhile.


And if you have your own views on how the profession should evolve, Mike and I would genuinely like to hear them. Get in touch through LED Confidential, suggest future guests, or tell us where we've got it wrong.


The next generation of local economic development practitioners is already here. The question is whether we're creating the conditions for them to succeed.


Further reading:


Further LEDC listening:

Comments

bottom of page