A political ally of Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has warned the UK government against a "formulaic" approach to handing R&D funding and decision-making powers to English regions, arguing that devolution done on a template basis risks missing the point of the exercise.

The intervention lands as ministers and city-region leaders negotiate the next wave of devolution deals, with research and innovation funding repeatedly named in those discussions as a prize worth transferring from Whitehall departments and national funding agencies to combined authorities.

What is the warning actually about?

The word "formulaic" carries specific weight here. It suggests concern that Westminster may resolve the devolution question by applying a uniform template — the same funding pots, the same governance structures, the same allocation arithmetic — to every city region, regardless of local research strengths, institutional density or industrial base.

That is a materially different critique from simply opposing devolution. The warning comes from within the pro-devolution camp, from someone aligned with the mayor of a city region that has been among the most vocal in demanding greater control over innovation spending. The objection is to method, not to direction.

For R&D managers at universities, catapult centres and corporate labs outside the Golden Triangle, the distinction matters. Devolution designed around a formula would presumably distribute new powers and money on a per-region or per-capita basis. Devolution designed around local research capability would instead concentrate resources where regional innovation ecosystems can demonstrably absorb and deploy them.

Why does this matter for portfolio decisions?

Research organisations currently plan multi-year portfolios against funding streams administered nationally — by UK Research and Innovation, by departmental programmes, by Innovate UK competitions. Any significant transfer of R&D budget control to combined authorities would change who signs off, what counts as impact, and which regional priorities shape call specifications.

A formulaic settlement would offer predictability: every region gets a defined slice, and portfolio planners could model regional funding lines with reasonable confidence. A capability-weighted or negotiated settlement would concentrate money unevenly, favouring city regions with strong institutional anchors and established innovation partnerships — and leaving others to build capacity before the funding follows.

The warning from the Burnham camp signals that at least some regional leaders expect the negotiated route, and are pressing the case before the design of any settlement hardens.

Who is pushing back, and against what?

National funding bodies and some in the research establishment have long argued that scientific excellence and peer review must not be subordinated to geography, and that fragmenting R&D budgets across a dozen combined authorities could dilute critical mass. The "formulaic" warning cuts differently: it accepts the principle of devolved R&D money but resists a one-size-fits-all implementation that would flatten differences between, say, an advanced-materials cluster, a life-sciences hub and a region building research capacity from a low base.

For policy watchers, the open question is whether the government treats devolution of R&D as a governance reform — moving decisions closer to users — or as a redistribution mechanism — spreading spend more evenly across the map. The two goals pull in opposite directions, and the Burnham ally's intervention suggests regional leaders know the government must eventually choose.

What should R&D leaders watch next?

Three signals will indicate which way the settlement is heading:

• Whether upcoming devolution deals specify R&D funding amounts and decision rights, or leave them to later legislation
• Whether combined authorities gain direct control over existing national programmes or only over newly created regional pots
• Whether allocation follows population-based formulas or negotiated, capability-linked settlements

Until those details emerge, research managers outside London, Oxford and Cambridge should treat regional devolution as a plausible shift in their funding environment rather than a settled fact — and track how far the "formulaic" critique shapes the final design.

The coming months of deal-making between city-region mayors and Whitehall will determine whether English R&D devolution ends up tailored to each region's research economy or distributed by the spreadsheet.