Andy Burnham’s political project is built around the idea that the economic model developed in Greater Manchester can be expanded across Britain. His version of “Manchesterism” combines stronger public intervention, regional decision-making, infrastructure investment and cooperation between government and business. But there is a significant weakness in that model: improving overall employment does not automatically mean improving women’s participation in the workforce.
Burnham has presented good employment and economic productivity as central parts of his political vision. His Manchester speech argued that people need good homes, employment, affordable transport and access to basic necessities if they are to become more productive. The problem is that female employment is often constrained by factors that a broad regional-growth strategy does not solve on its own.
The Female Employment Gap
Women’s participation in paid work is shaped by responsibilities that remain unevenly distributed between men and women.
Childcare is one of the biggest obstacles. When childcare is expensive, unavailable or poorly matched to working hours, families can find that a second income barely covers the cost of employment.
This is particularly important for mothers with young children.
A government can create jobs and improve transport, but if a woman cannot find affordable childcare near her workplace, the existence of a new job does little to change her economic position.
Manchesterism Focuses on Place
Burnham’s approach places considerable emphasis on regional economic development.
That has obvious advantages. Greater Manchester has become an important example of how devolved government can combine transport, employment and economic policy. Burnham wants other regions to develop their own versions of this model rather than allowing economic opportunity to remain concentrated in London.
But regional policy can overlook differences within the workforce.
Women are not a single economic group. A professional woman commuting into a city centre faces very different constraints from a single mother working part-time in a deprived town.
A successful Manchesterism therefore needs to measure who actually benefits from regional investment.
Childcare Is the Missing Link
If Burnham wants higher employment, childcare policy cannot be treated as a secondary issue.
The economic argument is straightforward.
When more women can work, the country gains workers, tax revenue and household income. Businesses gain access to a larger labour pool, while families become less dependent on a single income.
But childcare costs can make employment economically unattractive.
That means government support needs to consider not only whether childcare exists, but whether it is affordable, geographically accessible and compatible with actual working hours.
Transport Matters Too
Burnham’s experience in Greater Manchester gives him another potential advantage.
Transport is an important part of his political philosophy because poor connectivity can prevent people from accessing jobs.
This particularly affects women who combine employment with school drop-offs, childcare collection and other caring responsibilities.
A transport system designed around a conventional nine-to-five commuter may work poorly for people whose working day is fragmented.
If Manchesterism is going to become a national economic model, transport planning needs to reflect those realities.
Flexible Work Could Change the Equation
Female employment also depends heavily on workplace flexibility.
Some women leave employment not because they do not want to work, but because available jobs do not accommodate caring responsibilities.
Flexible hours, predictable schedules and opportunities for part-time or hybrid work can make employment possible for people who would otherwise be excluded.
Burnham’s broader emphasis on “good employment” gives his government an opening to address this problem. But the policy needs to go beyond general commitments to better jobs.
The test is whether employers actually create working arrangements that allow people with caring responsibilities to remain economically active.
Good Jobs Are Not Enough
Burnham frequently talks about good growth and good employment.
That is politically attractive, but it raises a difficult question: good for whom?
A well-paid full-time job may still be inaccessible to a parent who cannot obtain childcare for the required hours.
Similarly, a new industrial project may generate thousands of jobs without significantly increasing female employment if the positions are concentrated in traditionally male-dominated sectors.
This is where headline employment figures can become misleading.
The government needs to track employment by gender, age, region, working hours and caring responsibilities.
Industrial Strategy Has a Gender Problem
Burnham’s productive-state agenda emphasizes investment, infrastructure and reindustrialisation. His government has also linked defence spending to industrial development.
Those policies can generate economic growth, but many sectors targeted by industrial strategy—construction, engineering, manufacturing and defence—have historically employed more men than women.
That does not make industrial policy wrong.
It means the government must deliberately connect women to those opportunities through training, recruitment and workplace reform.
Otherwise, investment could widen existing employment differences rather than reduce them.
Regional Inequality Is Not Only North Versus South
One of the strengths of Burnham’s political argument is his focus on regional inequality.
But there is another layer of inequality inside every region.
A city can experience strong economic growth while some women remain outside the labour market.
Poorer households may face the greatest barriers because they have less ability to absorb childcare costs, transport expenses and periods without income.
That means a policy designed only around regional averages risks missing the people most in need of intervention.
Youth Employment Shows the Direction
Burnham’s government recently announced 10,000 work-experience placements for young people, working with businesses including Sainsbury’s. The initiative is aimed particularly at disadvantaged young people who are not in education, employment or training.
That shows the government is willing to intervene directly in labour-market participation.
The same logic could be applied to women returning to work after having children.
Rather than treating inactivity as an individual problem, policymakers could address the structural reasons people become economically inactive.
Employers Have a Role
The government cannot solve female employment entirely through public spending.
Employers also determine whether workplaces are compatible with family life.
Businesses that provide predictable hours, flexible arrangements, meaningful parental leave and career progression can retain workers who might otherwise leave.
Burnham has been trying to reassure businesses that his government wants cooperation rather than confrontation. Recent interviews have emphasized his desire to work with business and reduce operating costs.
That relationship could become important if the government wants companies to improve female participation.
The Risk of Measuring the Wrong Thing
The biggest danger for Burnham is confusing economic activity with economic inclusion.
A region can have rising GDP, new infrastructure and more jobs while women remain disproportionately responsible for unpaid care.
That would produce growth without fully using the available workforce.
For a government that describes itself as focused on productivity, that is a serious contradiction.
Women who want to work but cannot because of childcare, transport or inflexible employment represent unused economic capacity.
Manchesterism Needs a Care Strategy
If Burnham wants his economic philosophy to work nationally, he needs a clearer strategy for the care economy.
That means childcare, social care and eldercare should be considered part of economic infrastructure rather than separate welfare issues.
Without functioning care systems, workers cannot participate fully in the labour market.
This is particularly important as Britain ages and demand for care increases.
The Political Opportunity
There is also a political opportunity.
Policies that increase female employment can appeal across traditional political divides because they combine social and economic objectives.
A Conservative voter may support policies that help parents return to work because they increase household incomes.
A Labour voter may support them because they reduce inequality.
Businesses may support them because they expand the available workforce.
That gives Burnham an unusual area where economic intervention and social policy can reinforce each other.
Conclusion
Andy Burnham’s Manchesterism is built around a straightforward proposition: government should actively shape the conditions that allow regions and communities to become more prosperous. But female employment exposes a weakness in any economic strategy that focuses too heavily on jobs, infrastructure and regional growth without addressing unpaid care.
Burnham’s own definition of Manchesterism emphasizes employment, housing, mobility and public intervention. The challenge is turning those broad principles into policies that work for people whose working lives do not fit the traditional full-time model.
Childcare costs, school schedules, transport connections, flexible working and caring responsibilities can determine whether a woman enters employment, remains in it or leaves altogether.
That means female employment should not be treated as a narrow equality issue. It is an economic productivity issue.
If Burnham wants higher growth, Britain needs to make better use of its existing workforce. That requires removing barriers that prevent women from working as much as they would like.
The government’s youth-employment program demonstrates a willingness to intervene in labour-market participation. But similar attention will be needed for women who are economically inactive because of care responsibilities.
The real test of Manchesterism will therefore not be whether it creates more jobs in Britain’s regions. It will be whether those jobs are accessible to the people currently excluded from the labour market.
Until childcare, care, transport and workplace flexibility are treated as core economic infrastructure, Manchesterism risks creating growth without fully unlocking Britain’s female workforce.
