Abstract
This chapter examines the period from 1997 to 2010, during which time political devolution as a form of decentralization becomes a scale commitment across the British state. Devolution ultimately becomes supported and implemented across the political spectrum nationally, albeit for different ideological purposes and at different stages of the period. The key questions being answered are: What political-economic motives produced the contemporary commitment to devolution, and why is this occurring now? This chapter connects to the historical and analytical method applied in this book by explaining the mechanisms of change shaping institutional structures and policy approaches over time and space, specifically, how decentralization reflects political choices, strategies and struggles in the new millennium. It does this within a broader discussion of neoclassical economic growth theory versus a social democratic approach to economic development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This has been a call to action concerning the motives behind the dramatic changes happening to the spatial and territorial character of the state. See Erik Swyngedouw, “Reconstructing Citizenship, the Re-scaling of the State and the New Authoritarianism: Closing the Belgian Mines,” Urban Studies 33, 8 (1996): 1500.
- 2.
Gordon MacLeod, “Beyond Soft Institutionalism: Accumulation, Regulation, and Their Geographical Fixes,” Environment and Planning A 33 (2001): 1153.
- 3.
Wolfgang Streeck, “The Crises of Democratic Capitalism,” New Left Review 71 (2011): 7.
- 4.
For an outline of these perspectives, see Patrick Diamond, “Beyond the Westminster Model: The Labour Party and the Machinery of the British Parliamentary State,” Renewal 19, 1 (2011): 65–66.
- 5.
Richard Heffernan, New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), 66. Colin Hay, The Political Economy of New Labour: Labouring Under False Pretences? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 95, 97, 108.
- 6.
For a more detailed explanation of the challenges that New Labour encountered, see Hay, The Political Economy of New Labour, 120–121.
- 7.
Peter Burnham, “New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3, 2 (2001): 128.
- 8.
Christopher Hood and Rozana Himaz, A Century of Fiscal Squeeze Politics: 100 Years of Austerity, Politics, and Bureaucracy in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 172–174.
- 9.
David Cobham, Christopher Adam, and Ken Mayhew, “The Economic Record of the 1997–2010 Labour Government: An Assessment,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 29, 1 (2013): 7.
- 10.
Malcolm Sawyer, “Fiscal Policy Under New Labour,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 31, 6 (2007): 888.
- 11.
Ben Clift and Jim Tomlinson, “Credible Keynesianism? New Labour Macroeconomic Policy and the Political Economy of Coarse Tuning,” British Journal of Political Science 37 (2006): 64.
- 12.
Dan Corry, “UK Economic Performance Under New Labour 1997–2010: Facts, Lessons and Pointers,” in The British Growth Crisis: The Search for a New Model, ed. Jeremy Green, Colin Hay, and Peter Taylor-Gooby (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 42, 47, 51.
- 13.
Jeremy Green, “Anglo-American Financial Interdependence,” in The British Growth Crisis: The Search for a New Model, ed. Jeremy Green, Colin Hay, and Peter Taylor-Gooby (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 87, 89–90.
- 14.
Ken Coutts, Andrew Glyn, and Bob Rowthorn, “Structural Change Under New Labour,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 31 (2007): 851–856.
- 15.
Craig Berry, “The Final Nail in the Coffin? Crisis, Manufacturing Decline and Why It Matters,” in The British Growth Crisis: The Search for a New Model, ed. Jeremy Green, Colin Hay, and Peter Taylor-Gooby (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 177, 180, 185.
- 16.
Streeck, “The Crises of Democratic Capitalism,” 7.
- 17.
Hay, “The Political Economy of New Labour: A Preliminary Assessment,” 17.
- 18.
David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 90.
- 19.
Robert Skidelsky, Keynes: The Return of the Master (London: Penguin Books, 2009), 7–8.
- 20.
Hood and Himaz, A Century of Fiscal Squeeze Politics, 182.
- 21.
Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom, 199–200.
- 22.
Alan Trench ed., Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom (Great Britain: Manchester University Press, 2007), 54.
- 23.
Jonathan Bradbury, “Devolution in Wales: An Unfolding Process,” in Devolution, Regionalism and Regional Development: The UK Experience, ed. Jonathan Bradbury (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 45–47.
- 24.
Moran, Politics and Governance in the UK, 182.
- 25.
Martin Laffin, Eric Shaw, and Gerald Taylor, “The Parties and Intergovernmental Relations,” in Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom, ed. Alan Trench (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 198.
- 26.
Laffin, Shaw, and Taylor, “The Parties and Intergovernmental Relations,” 216–217.
- 27.
Paul Cairney, “The Territorialisation of Interest Representation in Scotland: Did Devolution Produce a New Form of Group-Government Relations?,” Territory, Politics, Governance 2, 3 (2014): 303–321; Paul Cairney, “The New British Policy Style: From a British to a Scottish Political Tradition,” Political Studies Review 9 (2011): 208–220.
- 28.
Comparative research suggests that countries that use proportional representation tend to have more diverse representation in their legislatures than countries that use plurality electoral systems. Overall, proportional systems facilitate greater party competition, and where diversity is a political issue actively being sought, it is used to enhance greater inclusion of under-represented populations in political institutions. Dennis Pilon, The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System (Toronto: Edmund Montgomery, 2007), 58, 128.
- 29.
For a discussion of these positions, see Bradbury, “Devolution in Wales: An Unfolding Process,” 50, 57, 60–61.
- 30.
Dave Byrne and Paul Benneworth, “Where and What Is the North East of England,” in The Rise of the English Regions?, ed. Irene Hardill et al. (London: Routledge, 2006), 108–109.
- 31.
Christopher Wilson and Mark Baker, “The North West Cultural Coherence and Institutional Fragmentation,” in The Rise of the English Regions?, ed. Irene Hardill, Paul Benneworth, Mark Baker, and Leslie Budd (London: Routledge, 2006), 123.
- 32.
Steven Musson, Adam Tickell, and Peter John, “A Decade of Decentralisation? Assessing the Role of the Government Offices for the English Regions,” Environment and Planning A 37 (2005): 1398.
- 33.
Paul Benneworth, “The ‘Rise’ of the Region: The English Context to the Raging Academic Debate,” in The Rise of the English Regions?, ed. Irene Hardill, Paul Benneworth, Mark Baker, and Leslie Budd (London: Routledge, 2006), 47–48.
- 34.
Musson, Tickell, and John, “A Decade of Decentralisation?,” 1398–1400.
- 35.
Stephen Fothergill, “A New Regional Policy for Britain,” Regional Studies 39 (2005): 660.
- 36.
Ian Deas, “Regional Strategy Building in North West England,” in Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning: Spatial Governance in a Fragmented Nation, ed. Mark Tewdwr-Jones and Philip Allmendinger (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006), 100–101.
- 37.
John Harrison, “Stating the Production of Scales: Centrally Orchestrated Regionalism, Regionally Orchestrated Centralism,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2008: 928; Musson, Tickell, and John, “A Decade of Decentralisation?,” 1402.
- 38.
John Harrison, “The Political-Economy of Blair’s ‘New Regional Policy’,” Geoforum 37 (2006): 937–940.
- 39.
Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders, and Mark Sandford, “Territory, Power and Statecraft: Understanding English Devolution,” Regional Studies (2017): 2–3; Sarah Ayres and Ian Stafford, “Managing Complexity and Uncertainty in Regional Governance Networks: A Critical Analysis of State Rescaling in England,” Regional Studies 48, 1 (2014): 222.
- 40.
Stephen Hincks, Brian Webb, and Cecilia Wong, “Fragility and Recovery: Housing, Localities and Uneven Spatial Development in the UK,” Regional Studies 48, 11 (2014): 1844.
- 41.
Robert Rowthorn, “Combined and Uneven Development: Reflections on the North-South Divide,” Spatial Economic Analysis 5, 4 (2010): 378–379.
- 42.
Richard Harris and John Moffat, “The Sources of the Scotland-Rest of the UK Productivity Gap: Implications for Policy,” Regional Studies 51, 9 (2017): 1298, 1307; Alex Law and Gerry Mooney, “‘We’ve Never Had it So Good’: The ‘Problem’ of the Working Class in Devolved Scotland,” Critical Social Policy 26, 3 (2006): 532.
- 43.
Alan Trench, “The Framework of Devolution: The Formal Structure of Devolved Power,” in Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom, ed. Alan Trench (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 54, 58.
- 44.
Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom, 239.
- 45.
Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, “The Distribution of Public Expenditure Across the UK Regions,” Fiscal Studies 24, 1 (2003): 56, 61.
- 46.
Rob Ball, David Eiser, and David King, “Assessing Relative Spending Needs of Devolved Government: The Case of Healthcare Spending in the UK,” Regional Studies 49, 2 (2015): 324.
- 47.
Guy Lodge and Rick Muir, “Localism Under New Labour,” The Political Quarterly 81, 1 (2011); Lawrence Pratchett, “Local Autonomy, Local Democracy, and the ‘New Localism’,” Political Studies 52 (2004): 358–375.
- 48.
George Jones and John Stewart, “Central-Local Relations Since the Layfield Report,” in Regulating Local Authorities: Emerging Patterns of Central Control, ed. Paul Carmichael and Arthur Midwinter (Portland: Frank Cass, 2003), 19.
- 49.
Mike Geddes, “Partnership and the Limits to Local Governance in England: Institutionalist Analysis and Neoliberalism,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, 1 (2006): 78.
- 50.
Jones and Stewart, “Central-Local Relations since the Layfield Report,” 19.
- 51.
Peter John, “The Great Survivor: The Persistence and Resilience of English Local Government,” Local Government Studies 40, 5 (2014): 694–695.
- 52.
John Mawson, “Local Economic Development and the Sub-National Review: Old Wine in New Bottles?,” Local Government Studies 35, 1 (2009): 44.
- 53.
Helen Sullivan, “Is Enabling Enough? Tensions and Dilemmas in New Labour’s Strategies for Joining-Up Local Governance,” Public Policy and Administration 20, 4 (2005): 10, 12.
- 54.
Howard Davis and Guy Daly, “From Community Government to Communitarian Partnership? Approaches to Devolution in Birmingham,” Local Government Studies 30, 2 (2004): 187–192.
- 55.
Mawson, “Local Economic Development and the Sub-National Review,” 45–46.
- 56.
Geddes, “Partnership and the Limits to Local Governance in England,” 81, 83, 89.
- 57.
Adam Dinham, “Empowered or Over-powered? The Real Experiences of Local Participation in the UK’s New Deal for Communities,” Community Development Journal 40, 3 (2005): 304–306, 308.
- 58.
Martin Laffin, “Local Government Modernisation in England: A Critical Review of the LGMA Evaluation Studies,” Local Government Studies 34, 1 (2008): 115.
- 59.
Laffin, “Local Government Modernisation in England,” 115.
- 60.
Peter Hall, “London: A Millennium-Long Battle, A Millennial True?,” in Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning: Spatial Governance in a Fragmented Nation, ed. Mark Tewdwr-Jones and Philip Allmendinger (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006), 167, 179.
- 61.
Andy Thornley, Yvonne Rydin, Kath Scanlon and Karen West, “Business Privilege and the Strategic Planning Agenda of the Greater London Authority,” Urban Studies 42, 11 (2005): 1956–1957, 1962–1963.
- 62.
Mawson, “Local Economic Development and the Sub-National Review,” 39–40, 49 57.
- 63.
John Harrison, “From Competitive Regions to Competitive City-Regions: A New Orthodoxy, But Some Old Mistakes,” Journal of Economic Geography 7 (2007): 317, 325–327.
- 64.
Mark Tewdwr-Jones and Nicholas A. Phelps, “Levelling the Uneven Playing Field: Inward Investment, Interregional Rivalry and the Planning System,” Regional Studies 34, 5 (2000): 430, 432.
- 65.
Phil Allmendinger and Graham Haughton, “Spatial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning Spaces,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 (2010): 807–808.
- 66.
Charlie Jeffery, “Devolution and Local Government,” Publius, 36, 1 (2006): 60.
- 67.
STV is a form of proportional representation where voters number their preferences for political candidates (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4). Ballot counting proceeds by an initial count of the first choices until a candidate exceeds the quota and is elected. At that point, surplus votes are redistributed to elect other candidates. See Pilon, The Politics of Voting, 185.
- 68.
Neil McGarvey, “Intergovernmental Relations in Scotland Post-Devolution,” in Regulating Local Authorities: Emerging Patterns of Central Control, ed. Paul Carmichael and Arthur Midwinter (Portland: Frank Cass, 2003), 30–32, 34, 41–42. Some commentators suggest that devolution entails a silent crisis: “It is time we fully recognised the state of democracy in Scotland. Below the national level, Scotland is the least democratic country in the European Union […] Excepting the turnout indicator (which as noted is disproportionately high in Scotland because of the track record of holding local and national elections on the same day), Scotland comes bottom in every single indicator of local democracy. We have the fewest councils, the fewest councilors, the largest constituencies (even including somewhere as sparsely populated as Norway or Finland), the highest ratio between the population and councillors, the lowest proportion of the population engaged in local politics, the least competitive elections and (barring England and even with the distorting effect of dual elections) the lowest turnout.” See Eberhard Bort, Robin McAlpine, and Gordon Morgan, The Silent Crisis Failure and Revival in Local Democracy in Scotland (Biggar: The Jimmy Reid Foundation, 2012), 9–10, 26.
- 69.
Philip Allmendinger, “Escaping Policy Gravity: The Scope for Distinctiveness in Scottish Spatial Planning,” in Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning: Spatial Governance in a Fragmented Nation, ed. Mark Tewdwr-Jones and Philip Allmendinger (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006), 153.
- 70.
Martin Laffin, “Comparative Central-Local Relations: Regional Centralism, Governance and Intergovernmental Relations,” Public Policy and Administration 22, 1 (2007): 75, 77–78, 81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vlahos, N. (2020). Devolution as a Scale Commitment from 1997 to 2010. In: The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48729-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48729-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48728-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48729-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)