Mission-led economic policy: how do we get the public and private sector working together effectively?

I recently had the pleasure of chairing a panel at Innovation Zero in which we examined the potential of mission-led government, as championed by Mariana Mazzucato. The concept is that governments should set bold, long-term missions to tackle complex challenges like climate change, inequality and technological transformation, and that these missions should guide both public and private sector activity. 

Joining me on the panel were expert representatives from leading civil society organisations and government: Jill Rutter, Senior Fellow, Institute for Government; Professor Piers Forster, Interim Chair, Climate Change Committee; Osian Jones, Head of Strategy and Design, London Borough of Camden and Catherine Day, Deputy Director, Cabinet Office. We were also joined by senior representatives from businesses and academia. 

Mission-led government remains a good idea 

There remains strong support for the concept of mission-led government, and it has formed a basis of Labour’s approach in office. It’s easy to see why, when designed and implemented well, it has the potential to break down departmental silos, energise the civil service, galvanise external stakeholders, and inform strategic funding decisions. At a time of urgent, systemic challenges, a bold and long-term mission-driven approach can help government translate complex goals into clear, actionable priorities. 

The ambition is to define multi-decade missions that transcend short-term political cycles, offering consistent direction to both the public and private sectors, something that has been a challenge at the highest levels of British politics in recent years. Local authorities like Camden have already pioneered this approach, setting missions around diversity, young people, food, and neighbourhoods with targets through to 2030. 

Implementation has been disappointing 

Despite the promise, the current government’s approach to mission delivery has been underwhelming. The missions lack clarity, coherence, and a convincing theory of change. Their relationship with local government remains poorly defined, and constrained local finances, rigid accounting rules, and capacity challenges make implementation at the local level even harder. 

Of the government’s flagship missions, the Clean Energy Superpower mission stands out as the most developed, underpinned by the Clean Power Action Plan. Yet even for this, the focus has narrowed over time, sidelining broader net zero goals. The mission leans heavily on areas of historic UK strength rather than driving progress where it is most needed, such as in nature restoration or climate adaptation. 

More broadly, the missions have yet to break down the policy silos they were meant to overcome. Inter-ministerial collaboration, such as on net zero, has faltered under the weight of competing demands. Institutional inertia within the civil service has been a key barrier: the system will not change unless both political and official leaders are genuinely committed to reform. The missions are neither collectively owned nor supported by the institutional and cultural shift needed to embed them in the machinery of government. So far the only glimmer of hope for deep cross-departmental working has been in the new Modern Industrial Strategy. 

Potential solutions 

Expert contributors at this recent discussion offered a range of ideas about how to reclaim the potential of mission-led government. 

• Reconnect missions to public purpose. Missions must resonate with how people want to live. Framing them around simple, human questions such as “Are we healthier? Happier? Are our local economies stronger? Are we helping the planet?” can make them more meaningful and compelling. 

• Build long-term legitimacy. Enduring missions require cross-party consensus. As seen with the Climate Change Act or Bank of England independence, institutional frameworks can help lock in long-term goals, but only after the underlying intellectual and political case is made and broadly accepted. 

• Engage stakeholders early and meaningfully. Missions must be co-owned across sectors. There is currently a disconnect between mission rhetoric and the economic realities facing businesses. Government must work more closely with industry to develop investment-friendly policy mechanisms, such as first-loss guarantees, that make missions viable in practice as we face economic and geopolitical headwinds. 

• Overcome policy silos. Missions should be used to integrate, not fragment, policymaking. Greater attention is needed on how different policy agendas interact, from infrastructure and planning to skills and service transformation: for example, the National Infrastructure Strategy, the Land Use Framework, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, and the Planning framework. 

• Learn from what works. An April 2025 Institute for Government case study on reducing school absences highlighted the value of a mission-style approach, drawing lessons from the former Social Exclusion Unit. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has also recently run an inquiry into Mission Government, and we expect to see a report back from that soon. 

Mission-led government has enormous potential, but it will only drive change if the government really means what it says and takes decisive action. Delivery requires clear leadership, long-term commitment, meaningful engagement with business and communities, and a willingness to reform the way government works. Very challenging, but perhaps not impossible.