Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution

Sarah Ayres,Matthew Flinders,Mark Sandford

doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486

Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn recent decades, the devolution of power to subnational regional authorities has formed a key element of what has been termed the ‘unravelling’ or ‘unbundling’ of the state in many parts of the world. Even in the United Kingdom, with its distinctive global reputation as a power-hoarding majoritarian democracy, the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1998 can be located within this broader devolutionary dynamic. In recent years, this process has focused on ‘the English question’ and a reform agenda that claimed to offer a ‘devolution revolution’. This paper offers the first research-led analysis of the scope, scale and implications of these post-2015 reforms to English governance. It utilizes Jim Bulpitt’s statecraft approach to explore the changing nature of centre–periphery relationships within England. The main conclusion has been that a ‘rhetoric–reality gap’ currently exists and a ‘devolution revolution’ has not occurred.

Highlights

Over recent decades, many countries have witnessed the decentralization of state functions in the form of both political devolution and administrative deconcentration (Asthana, 2013). Hooghe et al (2016), for example, assert that there has been a global trend towards decentralization
The main conclusion has been that a ‘rhetoric–reality gap’ currently exists and a ‘devolution revolution’ has not occurred
Such restructuring is viewed by commentators as a response to a variety of pressures including managing distinct subnational identities and cultures (Tang & Huhe, 2016), mitigating economic diversity (Martin, Pike, Tyler, & Gardiner, 2016), relieving the political and bureaucratic burden associated with centralization (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015), and changing political views on the contribution of decentralization to achieving economic and social policies (Hambleton, 2015; Jessop, 2016)

Summary

Introduction

Many countries have witnessed the decentralization of state functions in the form of both political devolution and administrative deconcentration (Asthana, 2013). Hooghe et al (2016), for example, assert that there has been a global trend towards decentralization. Of the 52 countries they examined, two-thirds have witnessed an increase in their levels of regional authority. Such restructuring is viewed by commentators as a response to a variety of pressures including managing distinct subnational identities and cultures (Tang & Huhe, 2016), mitigating economic diversity (Martin, Pike, Tyler, & Gardiner, 2016), relieving the political and bureaucratic burden associated with centralization (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015), and changing political views on the contribution of decentralization to achieving economic and social policies (Hambleton, 2015; Jessop, 2016). Since the government has rapidly initiated a potentially far-reaching reform agenda, statutorily underpinned by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion