The West Midlands is still suffering from an uneven funding system which has left it with less support for essential services than other parts of the country.
New Treasury documents have revealed that spending on transport and health is below the national average and spending on education is lower than many other parts of the country.
The region is caught in a Catch-22 situation as money is diverted to the north of England, where poverty is greater, and to London, where there are pockets of poverty but also so much wealth that costs are higher.
Scotland also receives disproportionate public funding even though it is now more wealthy than the West Midlands.
A report by analysts Cambridge Econometrics warned recently that growth in the region lagged behind the UK average, partly due to a fall in manufacturing output of eight per cent between 1997 and 2005.
A total of #35.6 billion was spent in the West Midlands in 2005/6, out of #420 billion in the UK as a whole.
This is higher than most other regions, but the West Midlands is also one of the most densely populated. A different picture emerges when spending per head is considered and as a result, expenditure on many services was low compared to other parts of the country.
For example, capital spending on transport was #684 million compared with #1.2 billion in London, so while the UK average transport spend per person was #296, in the West Midlands it was just #248.
The region generally received more funding than the East of England or East Midlands, which also suffered from being wealthy compared with the North but having lower costs than London.
One of the big winners was Scotland, where #8,265 was spent on services per head.
The figures were revealed in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2006.
Caroline Spelman, the MP for Meriden and Conservative shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, said the figures showed the region was getting a raw deal.
She said: "We always seem to come short in the West Midlands and here is the evidence to prove it.
"People who live in Britain's second largest city and the surrounding region are justified in asking some tough questions of the Government as to why we come off second best, or worse."
A Treasury Spokesman said: "Public spending is planned to benefit categories of individuals and enterprises irrespective of location, or where locations are prioritised using national criteria.
"The Government's long term regional aim is to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions, while reducing the gap in growth rates between the regions."