Regions are rarely defined by obvious geographical boundaries such as water catchments.  Instead, they are constructed by narratives and visions founded in spatial metaphors such as arcs, triangles and corridors that delineate sets of geographical entities (e.g. towns and cities) and relations between them (e.g. infrastructures) which suggest promising development trajectories and potential public benefits.  The Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor is a good example of this approach.  Covering a large tract of land between Oxford and Cambridge, it is a major development situated to the north of London’s green belt.  With well-developed networks of world leading universities and firms the corridor holds significant potential for knowledge intensive development and thus to achieve high levels of employment and productivity beyond the London metropolitan area.

When I first encountered this corridor in the late 1990s, it was called the Oxford to Cambridge Arc (O2C Arc).  The original vision was based on a growth pole model:  both Oxford ‘s and Cambridge’s economies were overheating and there was insufficient land supply in these areas. The central area of the region – towns such as Bedford and Northampton with post-industrial economies – could help resolve these issues by releasing land to accommodate housing for much needed workforce and thereby relieve development pressures at either end of the ‘Arc’.

Ultimately beyond regional development policy making circles, the O2C Arc vision and its subsequent iterations proved unpopular and did not yield sufficient concrete developments on the ground.  In my view this was because the growth pole model neglected the central section, by treating it as a residual to accommodate the ‘overspill’ from the overheating poles.  Housing and infrastructure developments for the central area were discussed but with few perceived benefits for local residents other than abstract arguments about increases in Gross Value Added which resonated in policy making circles but meant little locally.  Further, the kinds of knowledge intensive development prevalent at the poles did not quite materialise in the central area, partly due to a lack of innovation infrastructure – despite notable efforts such as to create the Central Innovation Network.

Despite serious attempts by the National Infrastructure Commission in 2016 to propose east west infrastructures which would form the foundation of the Arc, the region was swept away by political imperatives for regional development which lay outside the Arc.  But despite the ups and downs and travails of the Arc, now called a Growth Corridor (as I said earlier spatial metaphors abound in regional planning and development!) a core growth coalition has endured.  Mostly, I believe driven by a profound sense among key actors such as universities, local authorities and businesses that the region offers significant opportunities for development if only the ‘stars would align’ to form an appropriate conjuncture.  And indeed, the stars appear to be aligning with the emergence of the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.

Today, there is an even stronger growth coalition including the Arc Universities Group, Supercluster Board, England’s Economic Heartland and East West Rail.   There is also a greater sense that the central area of the Corridor is not a space simply to be travelled through and used by the book ends to accommodate their growth, but a place with a distinct history and trajectory of its own which through careful planning and infrastructure developments could benefit from the Corridor.

Indeed, situated in the central area of the Corridor, the Open University is the largest university in Europe, pioneering open access to education and research in digital spaces which reach across the corridor to the four nations and beyond.  Universities such as the OU are powerful nodes in the networks of actors which forms the basis of regions.  They are founded on long term views which help ensure stability and continuity in regional developments; their ability to address skills and knowledge shortfalls supports crucial industrial development; their world class research provides opportunities for knowledge based economic development.

Crucially, universities such as the OU also often provide much needed leadership in regional innovation, in creating infrastructures and networks which achieve high value-added knowledge intensive forms of economic development.  For example, the recent successful Local Innovation Partnership Fund Central Spine project is set to transform the central area Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor – spanning Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire – into the UK’s leading Innovation Circuit, turning world-class research into deployable, commercial technologies.

Led by the OU, it builds on three powerhouse clusters in high‑performance engineering, connected and autonomous systems, and dual‑use space and defence technologies. The programme will accelerate commercial readiness and unlock an estimated £4.5bn in annual Gross Value Added by 2035. Through coordinated investment in shared infrastructure, talent pipelines, cross‑sector collaboration and interoperable digital systems, the Innovation Circuit positions the region as the nation’s ‘engine room’ for applied innovation – where breakthroughs move rapidly from lab to street, and from street to scale, driving UK competitiveness and global market leadership.

So after almost 30 years, the stars may well be aligning for the whole region.  In part this is due to the persistence of the growth coalition and of key actors, such as the Arc Universities Group in particular.  Indeed, throughout much of the last 30 years, the regional policy space has been more meaningful than many of the developments on the ground.  But as this regional development gains momentum, in my view economic growth should not be pursued at any cost.  Rather we should actively promote the kinds of economic development which creates opportunities for all areas across the corridor in pursuit of equitable outcomes for its residents.

Matthew is Professor of Innovation at The Open University.  Informed by a professional background in urban and regional planning, his research interests are in the planning and governance urban development and technological change.  He has an international reputation for research focused on the planning and governance of urbanistic artificial intelligences embodied in mechatronics such as robots and drones in urban and regional environments.