Devolution in name only (DINO)?
All views my own. I’m interested in contributing to wider discourse on devolution and indeed all things local government!
I have felt for a short while now that devolution in England is devolution in name only. It feels as though central government has devolved down only as much money and power as it has redistributed upwards from local to sub-regional government. To put my suspicions to the test, I did a little bit of analysis of (most) devolution deals to date. The findings? Overall, devolution deals shifted funding and powers up almost as often as they genuinely devolved down.
But why? After all, despite increasingly polarized politics, both sides of the political spectrum are agreed: we are far too centralized—we need devolution. So, the question is: to what extent is this shared agenda really achieving its stated goals? Or is English devolution just DINO: Devolution In Name Only?
What’s it all about?
I want to judge devolution against its own stated goals and so, for the benefit of those at the back, what is devolution all about? And what challenges is it trying to fix?
“The UK is the most centralised developed country.” So says any vaguely informed policy wonk, from senior civil servants (c.f. former HMT 2nd permanent secretary Sharon White and former DfE permanent secretary Jonathon Slater) to public service commentators (Sam Freedman). There are myriad challenges associated with this:
Hence devolution.
For Angela Rayner, devolution is about “transfer[ring] more powers out of Westminster and into the hands of local people”. Michael Gove’s language was strikingly similar: devolution “gives local leaders more power, more money, and an even greater say on how their areas are run”. Devolution comes in about ~4 flavours:
Clearly, these are interrelated—but that doesn’t necessarily mean they all come together.
The key word is “down”. If devolution is to be successful, powers, funding, political accountability and delivery must flow downwards, not upwards. But are they?
How devolutionary is English devolution?
The biggest challenge with devolution deals to date is that many have involved sucking up powers from local councils to a slightly larger or sub-regional level. For example, making combined authorities responsible for certain highways rather than local authorities. Or, providing combined authorities responsibility for spatial planning, diminishing the planning powers of district councils. So, devolution has sometimes meant taking powers away from the hands of local people and giving local leaders less power and less of a say on how their areas are run—to couch it in Rayner’s and Gove’s languages, respectively. (That’s not to say these changes are bad. There is clearly a need to administrate some functions (housing, transport) at larger, more strategic levels. Some of this is necessary. Just not devolutionary).
So I decided to do a bit of analysis: are existing devolution deals moving powers up, or down? To calculate how devolutionary each devolution deal is, I’ve looked at the House of Commons library summary of each deal to date (this only covers deals to March 2024). Each deal involves shifting various powers and funding streams.
For each devolution deal, I’ve rated its components. Do they shift powers, funding, or decision-making up or down? Do they create new/duplicate powers for devolved authorities? Or neither?
And the answer? The centralization and decentralization initiatives pretty much balance each other out. Across all deals, 120 components represent decentralization; 93 centralization; and 36 neutral (e.g. integration of LEPs into Combined Authorities). So, overall, there is a very slight shift of resources and powers downwards.
领英推荐
Crucially, only a fraction of those initiatives actually shift responsibility for delivery and policy (and associate funding) from central to local government. Instead, most initiatives are merely removing central government restrictions, introducing joint working arrangements, or providing additional funding that—although much needed by local government—isn’t the same as de-centralising existing powers/funding. If the centre is overburdened being responsible for too much policy, delivery, and funding (as Sam Freedman persuasively argues in Failed State), then existing progress has barely made a dent in fixing it. And indeed, we have barely delivered more power and more funding to local people and communities.
A drop in the ocean
Where devolution deals have genuinely handed powers and funding to local authorities, they are a drop in the ocean. Consider two key devolutionary developments: devolution of the Adult Education Budget (and associated delivery), and the launching of Investment Funds.
And those are the big ticket items.
It is worth saying that the Government—no matter its stripes—has always viewed devolution as a process. It starts fairly unambitiously but, once the devolved authority gains maturity and proves itself worthy, can gain substantial powers. And there is clear evidence of that happening: Greater Manchester and West Midlands Combined Authorities’ trailblazer deals reflect, in my opinion, true devolution—for example, because the Treasury provides GMCA/WMCA a single funding settlement, as they do for government departments. And the total package of devolved funding for GMCA would have been ￡736m for the 2022/23 financial year, according to the IFG—equivalent to about 19% of the revenue expenditure of the 10 councils in the GMCA region in the same year.
Although this is positive, the 20% mark should be the floor for devolution, not the ceiling. After decades of this English devolution agenda, we have come to view single funding settlements as a big deal. But in the context of what devolution is all about, and what it needs to achieve, it’s just the start. Central government—backed from the very top—needs to find and devolve significantly more powers and funding. What if we flipped the script and asked: what functions can only be delivered by central government—and devolved everything else?
Beyond powers and funding
Devolution is also about local democracy and accountability. And here, devolution has created strong political figures in mayors. Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, Andy Street, and various Mayors of London are particular examples of success. This has generated greater political accountability and true place leadership: mayors have increasingly taken on a US Governor-esque role—someone who is increasingly viewed as responsible for, and involved in, all things sub-regional, whether or not the formal responsibility of their organisation.
And, last but not least, over the last 10 years, the % of the population that has been covered by a devolution deal has increased from ~15% to 45%.
Yes, Labour is scaling up the ambition—100% coverage, integrated settlements (for some), a Council of regions and nations, a focus on larger geographic areas, and a clear role for mayors in national policymaking. But they’re not averse to taking away power too: top-down planning changes, mandated local government reorganization, centrally set mandatory housing targets, and the feeling in some quarters that they are painting local government (and their planning departments) as the constraint on housing and growth.
DINO?
So, what does this all mean—is English devolution DINO? On democratic and political devolution, I don’t think that’s fair. But on funding, powers, and delivery? Given how long this agenda has been going on for, that it involves almost as much ‘sucking up’ as devolving down, and it being a drop in the ocean for most areas—devolution has failed to deliver.
And so, in my next few blog entries, I want to envisage alternative approaches to devolution that will genuinely meet devolution’s stated objectives, including:
Because if we don’t, we risk devolution fatigue. If we don’t, perhaps this is Devolution In Name Only