Five lessons to keep mission-led growth on track

5 December 2024

By Tanya Singh

7 minute read

The Prime Minister will today deliver what could be his most important speech of his five months in office. He will set out “delivery targets” for the government’s five missions, by which he and the government can be held to account ahead of the next election.

New targets should bring clarity and consistency across the missions – some of which have previously avoided numerical targets. But the government needs to resist throwing the baby out with the bath water: the delivery targets should support the longer-term missions, rather than becoming New Labour-style management targets.

In this blog, I set out five lessons from other countries and the UK’s recent experience on what missions-based government, done well, requires. Get it right, and we won’t just meet the delivery targets – we will have addressed the underlying issues holding back growth and public services. Get it wrong and the government risks bringing back bad memories of its predecessor’s unfulfilled promises.

Missions can be a powerful tool, but not every problem needs to be turned into a grand quest. Sometimes, applying a mission-oriented approach to every issue results in an excessive and inefficient response, creating more complications than necessary.

Missions work best when there’s a clear problem, strong political will, a time-bound target, and a broad coalition of people who need to change behaviours. But in rapidly evolving areas or emerging societal challenges, rigidly clinging to a particular target or way of doing things can stifle innovation and flexibility. And sometimes we don’t need a mission: government should just set a target over something in its control and get on and do it.

The EU’s attempt to push a mission-oriented approach across all its policy challenges shows the limits of this strategy. Take the mission to transition to a circular economy: a noble goal, but the fast-changing economic landscape means this mission’s rigid framework has often been more of a hindrance than a help. Starmer needs to recognise that a successful mission-oriented approach sometimes keeps things flexible and responsive, rather than locking into a path that might end up as a dead end.

One of the biggest threats to mission-oriented policies is "mission creep"—where ambitions expand without a corresponding increase in resources or authority. This leads to a diluted focus, vague objectives, and paralysing ambiguity. The temptation to broaden the scope of a mission, making it all-encompassing rather than targeted, can be hard to resist. Why bother setting clear goals for improving public transport in urban areas when you can have a sweeping mission that vaguely promises to revolutionise the entire national infrastructure?

Take the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) as a cautionary tale. Originally focused on fiscal discipline in the Eurozone, it expanded into broader economic governance, resulting in mission creep and muddling its original purpose. This kind of expansion sacrifices direction and concrete action for the sake of inclusiveness. While broad-based support is important, it’s crucial that the mission’s central goals remain sharp and focused. Enlisting new actors and gaining political backing should enhance the mission, not blur its targets.

A mission-driven government requires more than just goals; it needs well-equipped teams with specialised skills, tools, and mindsets.

Missions can sometimes be adopted without adequate consideration of the resources necessary for effective implementation, as it’s easier to agree to a headline commitment than each step required to get us there. This gap between ambitious concepts and practical execution can lead to an over-reliance on outdated delivery mechanisms, such as traditional budgeting and procurement methods. Compounding this issue is the complexity of cross-sectoral funding – where the public sector may need to be a “first mover” to bring in private investment.

One of the most important tests of these missions will come during the spending review. Missions need either their own dedicated budgets to signify their priority or must be a focal point in budget allocations across departments. If the government ringfences mission budgets, it would allow for clearer leadership, with one secretary of state and one official in charge of each mission. Otherwise, the risk is that Whitehall will play pass-the-parcel with budgets. And guess what? The music never stops.

Launching a mission without a clear framework for evaluation is like setting sail without a compass. The systemic and directional nature of missions demands clearly defined outcomes and a corresponding evaluation approach, yet this is often overlooked. Robust evaluation frameworks, tools, and skills are essential to monitor, assess, and adjust missions as they progress. The conventional monitoring and evaluation techniques, which once effectively measured the success of clear-cut initiatives, may prove inadequate in navigating the murky waters of mission-driven governance.

A pertinent example is the European Union's Horizon 2020 program, which aimed to foster innovation and address societal challenges. Despite its ambitious goals, the program lacked a systemic evaluation framework, making it difficult to measure its long-term impact across diverse sectors. Projects were kicked off with little thought to how success would be measured, making it tricky to figure out what worked and what didn’t. The Prime Minister needs to ensure that robust, mission-specific evaluation tools are in place to keep everything on track and avoid the dreaded "I’m not sure what we’ve achieved" moment.

And then there’s the problem of ownership—or lack thereof. When everyone’s in charge, no one really is. Effective mission governance demands clear, focused targets, strong political backing, and a designated entity with the authority and resources to get the job done. Cross-government missions frequently suffer from a lack of a clear "parent," leaving them adrift without strong leadership. Policymakers must establish clear lines of ownership and responsibility for these missions and their outcomes – so we need to look at the detail of the “Mission Delivery Unit” and the Boards led by Pat McFadden MP.

As Keir Starmer moves forward with his mission-led growth strategy, the forthcoming Spending Review; plans around devolution; and policies like the Industrial Strategy will either solidify his ambitions or see them unravel.