Politics & International Relations
Devolution
Devolution refers to the transfer of power and decision-making authority from a central government to regional or local governments. This process allows for greater autonomy and self-governance at the regional level, often in areas such as education, healthcare, and transportation. Devolution is aimed at addressing regional disparities, promoting local accountability, and fostering a sense of regional identity and pride.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
11 Key excerpts on "Devolution"
eBook - PDFDiverging Mobilities
Devolution, Transport and Policy Innovation
- Danny MacKinnon, Jon Shaw, Iain Docherty, Danny MacKinnon, Jon Shaw, Iain Docherty, Steven Tiesdell(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Elsevier Science Ltd(Publisher)
As Salmon and Keating (2001) observe, much of the debate about the transformation of the state has been conducted at a general, abstract level rather than offering detailed examinations of change in particular places. One of the most concrete and tangible processes in this respect is Devolution. Since the 1970s, many unitary states across the world have introduced some degree of Devolution, strengthening the regional scale of government ( Rodriguez-Pose & Gill, 2003 ). This has produced an assortment of institutional arrangements, stretching from the strong regionalism of Spain to the functional (administrative) regionalism found in Portugal or Sweden ( Keating, 1998 ). From the perspective of the central state, Devolution can be seen as part of a broader process of territorial management, designed to meet the two underlying territorial objectives of the state: ‘‘preserv[ing] the integrity of the territory, and ensur[ing] legitimacy within these boundaries through popular support for and acquiescence to its political authority’’ ( Rokkan & Urwin, 1983, p. 166 ). It is instructive to note, however, that the introduction of political decentralisation has often not been enough to settle debates over Devolution and regionalism, sometimes leading to further stages of reform. Whilst the observation that Devolution is a process not an event has become something of a cliche´ in the context of British Devolution ( Davies, 1999 ), the adoption of a broader international perspective serves to emphasise its underlying validity ( Hazell, 2001 ). The purpose of this chapter is to place our study of transport policy in the UK within the broader context of the literature on Devolution and state restructuring, outlining the theoretical perspectives that inform the book and reviewing the process of Devolution in other states.
eBook - PDFLocal Government in England
Centralisation, Autonomy and Control
- Colin Copus, Mark Roberts, Rachel Wall(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
5.2 Review of agreed Devolution deals to date (15 May 2016). Source: Adapted from Wall and Vilela Bessa (2016) Devolution TODAY: REVOLUTION OR SUBMISSION? 126 local authorities and central government by 15 May 2016. The figure presents the Devolution deals that have moved through the parliamentary process of negotiation and subsequent approval. What the figure pres- ents are the geographical/administrative make-up of established or pro- posed combined authority areas, the established or proposed governance arrangements and the powers and functions that have been granted or requested as part of the deal-making process with the centre. Thus, the figure presents a snapshot of Devolution deals, but one which enables us to make some conclusions about the process and outcomes. Devolution of Political Power or Decentralisation of Administrative Functions? In the first chapter, we explored a number of—often overlapping—con- ceptualisations of Devolution and decentralisation and provided an organ- isation of these concepts in order to draw clear distinctions which help us to analyse the current Devolution reforms. In employing this framework, it is useful to start with the overarching narrative: ‘Devolution Revolution’. That rather grand even hyperbolic description of the current reforms might lead one to believe that local government is experiencing substantial Devolution of political power and authority. Such a process would involve local authorities working together to agree the establishment of new gov- erning institutions possessing legislative powers and enhanced decision- making capacities. It would also imply a reshaping of the constitutional relationship between two tiers of government, as it did with Devolution to Scotland; the UK Parliament may remain sovereign, but Scotland still enjoys a significant degree of power and autonomy (Trench 2007).
eBook - PDF- Pete Alcock, Tina Haux, Vikki McCall, Margaret May, Pete Alcock, Tina Haux, Vikki McCall, Margaret May(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Blackwell(Publisher)
Ironically, the Devolution question has begun to turn into the ‘English question’ of how far English political interests, articulated through Westminster, tolerate divergent policies in the devolved nations that are not fully paid for by local decisions. We lack consensus on the balance of diversity and soli-darity within the UK and the extent of policy dis-cretion and spending capacity allowed to localities and their political institutions. A political system that has never absorbed federal thinking is bound to find these questions difficult, especially when the spirit of the times is making it hard to use a generous welfare state as an instrument of territorial stabilisation. Guide to Further Sources The best account of the system is Birrell, D. (2009) The Impact of Devolution on Social Policy , Bristol: Policy Press. Keeping up with post-Devolution developments is not always easy: the best long-term work is by the Constitution Unit at University College London, which publishes quarterly monitoring reports available on www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit. The Institute for Research on Public Policy has published much relevant material, especially its Devolution in Practice 2010 series and Raikes, L. (2020) The Devolution Parliament , Manchester: Institute for Public Policy Research on England. An important comparative study is Greer, S. (2005) Territorial Politics and Health Policy , Manchester: Manchester University Press. Evidence submitted to the Smith Commission in 2014 by the UK and Scottish government gives valuable analytical material on the practicalities of existing and further Devolution: https://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20151202171029/http:/ www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_ Report-1.pdf. Current commentary is provided by the University of Edinburgh’s Centre on Constitutional Change www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk. SOCIAL POLICY AND Devolution 151 Review Questions 1.
- Nick Vlahos(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
42The second factor relates to the mechanisms of allocating public expenditure and how they perpetuate inter-territorial inequity. While spatial disparities are impacted by a combination of market exposure and economic cycles, as well as sectoral differentiation, they are also impacted by the constitutional and political imbalance arising from asymmetrical Devolution. This was indeed the basis of the Sewell convention of Westminster that grants the national government the power to legislate for the devolved administrations. The convention does state that it would not normally legislate for regional matters without the consent of the devolved legislature. Moreover, none of the Scottish Parliament , the National Assembly for Wales or that of Northern Ireland can alter the terms of Devolution, including the number of members of the legislatures, the electoral system used or the nature of executive power and its relation to the legislature, which are outside devolved competence. This gives Westminster a veto over constitutional development.Intergovernmental relations are therefore essential to governing the UK after Devolution.43 Concomitantly, local or devolved legislatures need revenue from the central government to finance their expenditure plans. Labour elected to oppose Devolution’s tax-raising powers because it argued that the government’s approach to finance should be focused less on geography and political clout for the allocation of public resources. The party felt that it would be difficult for macroeconomic policies to be successful if they were confronted by recalcitrant local and regional authorities. The Welsh Assembly has no revenue-raising powers at all, while the Scottish Parliament has the power to vary the basic income tax rate, but the permissible range is limited. The government can thus increase taxes at its discretion but given that Scotland’s Parliament is dependent on Westminster for financing, it has fewer options. One is to withhold finance from local government, as 40% of the block grant goes to finance local authority expenditure. If in fact the devolved bodies withhold finance from local authorities, the latter need to raise council taxes to maintain services. This makes Devolution quite limited with respect to its financial arrangements; there was a discrepancy between political and fiscal decentralization, as the devolved legislatures lacked the power to raise and spend tax-generated revenue.44
eBook - PDF- M. Rush, P. Giddings, M. Rush, P. Giddings(Authors)
- 2007(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
12 Devolution: Relative Stability and Political Change Jonathan Bradbury The experience of Devolution in Scotland and Wales has increased the complexity of territorial politics in the UK. At the same time, it has also made for greater political stability, relative to the persistent pressures for change before Devolution. The political dominance of the Labour Party at both UK and Scottish/Welsh levels has been of undoubted importance in this. In addition, the very centrality of Devolution to political debate in Northern Ireland, even while suspended, has also helped to bolster a greater civil peace there. Overall, despite the misgivings of constitutional unionists and hopes of nationalists that Devolution would provide a pathway to independence, 1 thus far it has proved to be a very British reform, modifying rather than transforming the state. 2 There have, of course, been question marks over whether such a mixture of enhanced diversity and relative stability will endure. As the divergence of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politics increases, a politicised Englishness emerges and the institutions of UK territorial management are found deficient. 3 These more divergent pressures for political change have thus far been latent but have the potential to transform the politics of UK Devolution. 4 This chapter addresses the key developments in party politics, government and constitutional debate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2006. In each case, the assessment suggests the continuation of an underlying combination of diversity and relative stability in UK territorial politics. Nevertheless, the year was notable for questions about Labour’s control of Devolution in Scotland and Wales, while problems within devolved government, and renewed constitutional debates, created the potential for considerably greater instability in the politics of Devolution.
eBook - PDFConstitutional Futures Revisited
Britain's Constitution to 2020
- R. Hazell(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
Discussions hard for UK to manage • Attempts to work out what Devolution ‘means’ become more formalised and perhaps legalised • Finance put on back burner or issues resolved ad hoc, but money remains a source of friction • Failure to address issues of policy coordination, finance and symbolism of UK state • Willingness for Scotland and Wales to consider independence, for Northern Ireland to consider extensive links with Republic • UK embraces continuing process of Devolution – willing to discuss further transfers of functions • Develops clear approach to what UK is for (economics, defence and security, diplomacy) at a minimum • Consults devolved administrations about key actions affecting them • Refurbished JMC meets regularly on functional and plenary levels • Attempts to ensure equity and autonomy result in complicated financial mechanisms Figure 3.3 Centralising/decentralising dynamics in regional and federal systems Alan Trench 51 Attempts to do so would be likely to provoke a severe backlash and lead to greater devolved autonomy, not less. Thus, on this axis, ‘centralising’ means maintenance of the status quo rather than a dramatic change in it. The horizontal axis is concerned with whether the UK centrally chooses actively to manage its territorial politics, or instead continues to engage with these issues minimally, reactively, bilaterally and unstrategically. This sort of ad hoc approach has been manageable up to now, largely thanks to a sub- stantial degree of political consensus between all three British governments and the work of civil servants to co-ordinate policy in such a situation (discussed in detail in Trench 2007). Active management of the Union implies a very different sort of approach, which would embrace a different approach to financial arrangements and other changes as well. These would probably include: • Taking a strategic view of what the state as a whole is for, and what is the role of the constituent units and their institutions.
eBook - PDF- Roger Mortimore, Andrew Blick, Roger Mortimore, Andrew Blick(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
CHAPTER 18 Devolution © The Author(s) 2018 R. Mortimore and A. Blick (eds.), Butler’s British Political Facts, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56709-3_18 767 Although the United Kingdom is sometimes described as a unitary state, it has always been characterised by considerable territorial diversity in its inter- nal constitutional arrangements. The idea of Home Rule or Devolution for one or more parts of the United Kingdom has come onto the political agenda at various points since the nineteenth century. Between 1921 and 1972, a system of Devolution operated in Northern Ireland. During the 1970s there were abortive attempts to introduce Devolution for Scotland and Wales. Then the Labour government that first took office in 1997 successfully formed devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. At present, there are initiatives underway to extend forms of Devolution to regions and to combined local authorities in England, which had previously largely been excluded from the Devolution process. MAIN LANDMARKS 1906–14 Scottish Home Rule Bills given First or Second Readings 6 times in House of Commons, though never reaching Committee Stage 1912 First draft of Government of Ireland Bill proposed that all Bills referring exclu- sively to England, Scotland or Ireland should be dealt with by national Grand Committees. This was to be a prelude to full legislative Devolution but was abandoned to avoid overloading the Government of Ireland Bill 4 Jun 19 Resolution in favour of Devolution carried by 187 to 34 12 May 20 Speaker’s Conference reported (Cmd 692/1920) in favour of either full legislative Devolution or Devolution to Grand Committees 7 Jun 21 Devolved powers transferred to Northern Ireland government at Stormont under Government of Ireland Act 1920 12 Apr 45 First Scottish Nationalist M.P. elected (defeated 5 Jul 45) 1949–51 Scottish Covenant attracts 1,100,000 signatures in Scotland 1950 Parliament for Wales Campaign 14 Jul 66 First Plaid Cymru M.P.
eBook - PDF- Roger Masterman, Colin Murray(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Once granted, however, autonomy can deliver so successfully for residents of a region that they come to question why 478 15 Devolution and the UK Constitution more powers are not devolved, or even to consider independence. In Scotland, for example, the success of Devolution in creating responsive governmental institutions, at least by comparison to earlier ‘direct rule’ from Westminster, may have provided additional impetus for the Scottish independence movement. The Conservative Party fought the 1997 general election on the basis of a manifesto expressly opposed to Devolution, arguing that it would ‘create a new layer of government which would be hungry for power’ and that devolved institutions would be drawn into ‘rivalry and conflict’ with Westminster. 1 Tony Blair’s Government attempted to address these concerns in its Devolution arrange- ments, protecting the current structure of the UK with a system of three ‘locks’. 2 The first lock is that the Devolution legislation acknowledges that all of the devolved institutions ‘owe their authority and indeed their existence to the Parliament of the United Kingdom’. 3 The Scotland Act 1998, for example, maintained that Westminster delegated law-making powers to the Scottish Parliament, and expressly stated that Devolution ‘does not affect the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to make law for Scotland’. 4 These restrictions map across to the other Devolution arrangements. The second lock relates to the wording of the Devolution legislation. The statutes enacted in 1998 are technical in nature, shorn of the ‘constitutional’ language which had been employed, for example, by the Scottish Constitutional Convention or even within parts of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, such as the provisions which discuss the ‘birthright’ of the people of Northern Ireland.
- José Magone(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
4 Devolution in the European Union: The Role of Subnational Authorities in Scotland and Catalonia Elisa Roller and Amanda Sloat This chapter examines the role of political elites in the emerging process of multilevel governance, comparing and contrasting the experiences of Scotland and Catalonia in the European Union (EU). It argues that domestic conceptions of governance guide the way in which Scottish and Catalan elites think about their involvement in the European Union's decision-making process, as they focus on the nation's right to become involved at the supranational level. This chapter evaluates the positions of Scotland and Catalonia within their respective systems of governance, a crucial task as "the participation of regional governments at the European level reflects their institutional capacity within their respective political systems" (Hooghe and Marks 1995, 22). It then compares the developments resulting from Devolution in the United Kingdom and in Spain, focusing on elite attempts to secure greater participatory rights in EU policymaking. Finally, the chapter identifies key differences between the two case studies by analyzing domestic factors that affect the ability of elites to access the European policy arena. 76 Regional Institutions and Governance Devolution IN THE UNITED KINGDOM A N D SPAIN Before considering how elites have sought greater involvement in the European legislative process, it is first necessary to place Scotland and Catalonia within the wider context of asymmetric Devolution. Scotland Discussions about constitutional change in Scotland occurred in var- ious forms throughout the twentieth century, motivated in part by perceptions of national identity and the development of the European Union. A Scottish Parliament was almost established in the late 1970s by the Labour government.
Available until 15 Jan |Learn moreChanging Federal Constitutions
Lessons from International Comparison
- Arthur Benz, Felix Knüpling, Arthur Benz, Felix Knüpling(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Verlag Barbara Budrich(Publisher)
Key provisions affecting the UK as a whole were paid lit-tle attention in each case when Devolution was being established, including the financing of Devolution and relations with London. Devolution has been successful as a response to particular problems of legitimacy in components of the UK. However, the unintended consequences and spillover effects of Devolution were paid scant attention. Again, issues of finance and intergovernmental relations (IGR), especially financial IGR, are evidence of an absence of coherent thinking. But the fundamental problem is 226 James Mitchell that of partisan approaches to constitutional change. Devolution has poten-tially only displaced the problem of legitimacy rather than resolving the prob-lem in the asymmetrical system that exists in the UK. It is conceivable that in time the implications of Devolution will provoke a backlash in England. As Rose remarked, England acquires distinctive institutions of governance “only by default, when Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland opt out of specific policies” (Rose, 1982: 31). Devolution highlights asymmetries in ways that may call into question the legitimacy of English governance especially in pe-riod of public financial constraints. The UK constitution can be amended as any other non-constitutional pol-icy change can be enacted. This creates the possibility that constitutional change is subject to the vagaries of adversarial party politics. This was high-lighted in February 2011 during a House of Lords debate on the Coalition Government’s proposals for a referendum on the Alternative Vote. A former Labour Minister complained about the manner in which constitutional change was brought about: “My point is that, as I face the Chamber, the two oldest political parties in the country [Conservatives and Liberal Democrats] are joining together to rewrite our constitution on a daily, as-you-go-by basis. In other words, we do not know what is happening next.
- Davide Vampa(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
In sum, in Great Britain the asymmetrical nature of institutional decentralisation has been primarily driven by territorial mobilisation. In this respect, British Devolution is very different from Italian regionalisation, which has been a top-down, rigid process granting the same formal autonomy to Lombardy and Latium even though the demands for autonomy were much stronger in the former than in the latter. It is also quite different from Spain, where the central government has tried to counterbalance the demands for self-government coming from sub-state nationalities and ‘historical regions’ by devolving some competencies and creating representative institutions even in those regions with no territorial identity.The Labour Party and the Challenge of Devolution
At the time of its foundation, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Labour Party was not hostile to processes of political Devolution. This is because it had needed to compete with the Liberals, which, for instance, were supporters of Home Rule for Scotland. Yet this initial commitment steadily dissipated as Labour replaced the Liberals as Britain’s main ‘progressive’ party from the 1920s onwards. Thus, ‘Labour rapidly adopted a centralist approach to governing—a national, rather than nationalist, perspective—whereby it both portrayed and perceived itself as a Party and (when in Office) a government for the whole United Kingdom’ (Dorey 2008 : 203). Therefore, even though the Labour Party continued to represent the interests of the periphery—Scotland, Wales, but also the north of England, by the mid-1920s it had become a ‘centralising party’ that sought to help peripheral regions by relying on nationalisation and centralised economic planning (Bogdanor 2001 : 167).Volkens et al. (2013 ) have provided data on parties’ attitudes towards decentralisation by performing a content analysis of their manifestoes. Support for decentralisation is measured by subtracting the percentage of semi-sentences against decentralisation or in favour of centralisation (code 302) from the percentage of semi-sentences in favour of decentralisation. Also, these data suggest that in the post-war period the Labour Party was a centralist political force (Table 9.1 ). Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, both Liberals and Conservatives seemed to have had more positive attitudes towards Devolution than Labour. In this period the Labour Party came to believe that the establishment of a universal welfare system and effective social policies also required centralisation. Therefore benefits should depend on need and not on geography. In a debate on Devolution, the Labour MP Colin Phipps stated that ‘the underprivileged child in Eastbourne is as important as the child in Glasgow’.5In sum:For most of the post-war period, there was a cross-party consensus on the acceptance of the Welfare State and its ideals of uniformity and symmetry of welfare provision across the territory. The Labour Party in Scotland and Wales were strongly in favour of this and […] many of their members originally opposed Devolution on the grounds that it might endanger its consensus and the benefits their societies […] received from it. (Loughlin 2011
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
