The ‘Devolution Revolution’
Some personal musings on the new paper from Reform Think Tank on reimagining local government structures built for the 21st century…
“What Powers Where? Achieving the Devolution Revolution” is a timely release by Reform Think Tank and argues (rightfully IMHO) that our journey toward effective devolution in England is far from straightforward and most definitely only in its nascency. Bearing in mind the Local Government heavy hitters involved in its production I was very privileged along with a group of others to provide some external review and with its published release last week I wanted to cover off a TL:DR in a blog to bring out some of the key themes which i think will be of huge importance to the debate.
The UK is still one of the most centralised liberal democracies and in response to the growing concerns about the inefficiencies and limitations of this centralisation, there has long been a push for more devolution that seeks to empower more effective local decision making through delegation of powers that can respond to local need more effectively and more swiftly.
The previous government had made certain commitments on devolution through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and most recently the new Labour governments has made it a significant focus of their manifesto commitment stating:
“In England, Labour will deepen devolution settlements for existing Combined Authorities. We will also widen devolution to more areas, encouraging local authorities to come together and take on new powers. Towns and cities will be able to take hold of the tools they need to pursue growth, create jobs, and improve living standards. Local areas will be able to gain new powers over transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning, and employment support. We will ensure those places have the strong governance arrangements, capacity, and capability to deliver, providing central support where needed. the transfer of powers from the central government to local and regional authorities.
Addressing Overcentralisation
England’s political and governance landscape has long been characterised by its centralisation. Most strategic decisions, policy formulation, and significant financial controls are managed directly by central government, leaving local authorities with limited autonomy. This concentration of power has led to a number of challenges:
- Inefficiency in Public Services: Local authorities are often tasked with implementing policies designed in Westminster, far removed from the specific needs and contexts of local communities. This disconnection leads to inefficiencies, as one-size-fits-all policies fail to address local nuances, resulting in suboptimal public service delivery.
- Erosion of Public Trust: Overcentralisation has contributed to declining trust in government institutions. Citizens often feel that their voices are not heard and that decisions affecting their lives are made by distant actors who don’t experience their realities. This fosters disengagement and cynicism toward the political process and erodes the power of democracy.
- Stifling Local Innovation: Centralised control limits the ability of local authorities to experiment with innovative solutions tailored to their communities. Local governments, constrained by rigid national frameworks, struggle to address local problems creatively and effectively.
- Local Economic Nuance: This is my personal favourite as it has so many interdependencies with other challenges and opportunities. While there is still limited evidence in the correlation between economic growth and devolution this does not mean that they are not intrinsically linked. Our local government structures were built for the 19th century and devolving responsibility based on these models (even with combined authorities now) is not likely to be as effective as it could be alongside proper public sector reform underpinned by modern working practices, and approaches (more on this in another blog).
- Fiscal devolution: has also never been explored properly. Currently only 19 per cent of all local spending in the UK funded locally, compared to 37 per cent in the average OECD unitary state and this is a key key characteristic of successful local economies where connecting the tax base to local priorities and demand brings a much more coherent approach to economic and industrial strategy and the pivotal role of public institutions within their communities.
The concept is simple: by transferring powers closer to the people they affect, governance can become more responsive, efficient, and democratic. However, as “What Powers Where? Achieving the Devolution Revolution” argues (and I would broadly agree), the current approach to devolution in England is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks a clear, strategic framework.
The Current State of Devolution in England: A Fragmented Approach
The devolution process in England has been piecemeal, characterized by a series of ad-hoc deals between central government and local authorities. These deals have often been limited in scope, with powers being devolved unevenly across the country. Some regions have benefited from the establishment of Combined Authorities gaining control over areas like transport, housing, and health. However, other regions have seen little to no devolution, leading to a fragmented governance landscape. Even where Combined Authorities have been established the nature of the ‘deals’ are far from standardised and give a piecemeal ecosystem of strategic governance at best.
This uneven approach has several drawbacks which are described in greater detail within the paper itself but they are expanded around the following themes:
- Inconsistent Governance Structures: The variability in governance structures across England has created confusion among citizens, who may be unclear about which level of government is responsible for what services. This inconsistency undermines accountability and makes it difficult for the public to engage meaningfully with their local authorities.
- Lack of Strategic Regional Governance: While some regions have established Combined Authorities, these entities often have limited powers and do not cover the entire country. This patchwork approach to regional governance hinders strategic planning and coordination, particularly in areas like economic development, transport, and housing, which require a regional perspective. This is going to be incredibly important in terms of planning reform and how some of the proposals in the new NPPF (under consultation) can be expedited.
- Hyper-Local Governance Gaps: In many areas, there is an absence of strong and inclusive/transparent hyper-local governance. Unlike other European countries where small municipalities or communes play a crucial role in local governance, much of England lacks this level of administration. The result is a disconnect between local communities and decision-makers, reducing the effectiveness of local governance and limiting opportunities for community engagement.
Proposing a New Framework for Devolution: Design Principles for Effective Governance
To address these challenges, the paper proposes a new framework for devolution based on a set of key design principles. These principles aim to ensure that powers are allocated to the most appropriate levels of government, enhancing efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness.
I am a true believer in working to agreed design principles, and that they can be the ‘north star’ of any projects, programmes or initiatives giving opportunity to continuously ‘check your workings’ against strategic objectives. Whether or not you agree with the principles laid out in the paper It feels like a solid approach and helps to avoid being too prescriptive with solutions.
Subsidiarity: Empowering Local Decision-Making
The principle of subsidiarity is central to the proposed framework. Subsidiarity suggests that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government that is capable of effectively managing them. By bringing decision-making closer to the people it affects, subsidiarity promotes greater community engagement and ensures that policies are more closely aligned with local needs.
In practice, this means devolving more powers to local authorities and, where appropriate, establishing new forms of hyper-local governance, such as Parish or Town Councils, in areas where they are currently absent. These hyper-local entities would be responsible for managing community infrastructure and services, fostering a stronger sense of community ownership and responsibility.
I would also argue that there is a need to look at the current operations and representative demographics of hyper local governance and set out a programme of reform which could increase engagement with more diverse representation which mirror more effectively their local communities.
Sustainability: Ensuring Financial and Operational Viability
Another key principle is sustainability. For devolution to be successful, local governance structures must be financially and operationally sustainable. This requires giving local authorities the resources they need to fulfil their responsibilities without over-reliance on central government funding or counterintuitive bidding mechanisms for funding pots. It also means building public trust by ensuring that governance structures are efficient and not overly costly.
The paper suggests that financial sustainability can be achieved by granting local authorities greater fiscal autonomy, allowing them to raise their own revenues through local taxes and other means. This would not only provide local governments with the resources they need but also create stronger incentives for efficient and responsible management.
This would be an unprecedented step in the UK but the argument for at least piloting a well designed manifestation of fiscal devolution; especially in geographic areas that may have to shoulder the brunt of the economic growth burden may be a useful way to test the proof of concept in the UK context.
Flexibility and Specialisation: Adapting to Local Needs
Flexibility is framed as a critical component of the proposed framework. It is argued that local governance structures should be adaptable to local conditions and community needs. Rigid, hierarchical approaches are less effective than flexible systems that can respond to the unique challenges and opportunities of different areas. This feels a long way off (especially combining my local government and change management hats), however as a principle it feels super important in 21st century society.
At the same time, the authors emphasise the importance of specialisation. Each tier of government should have a clear, specialised role, avoiding duplication of efforts and ensuring that responsibilities are allocated in a way that maximises efficiency and effectiveness.
Join-Up and Integration: Fostering Collaborative Governance
Finally, the paper highlights the need for integrated governance structures that enable better coordination and collaboration across different tiers of government. By aligning related services and responsibilities within single tiers of government, policymakers can improve service delivery and foster more holistic approaches to problem-solving.
This is important but irrespective of radical structural changes, there will still be a fundamental need to get better at integrating across organisational boundaries. Data and modern approaches are key here and this will be an area (for obvious reasons) I will probably bring to another blog. The power that digital, data and technology (DDaT) based approaches to redesign could have here will be unprecedented and will go a long way to overcoming previous challenges to effective devolution.
Redistributing Powers: A Blueprint for Change
Building on these design principles, the paper proposes a comprehensive approach to redistributing powers across the different tiers of government in England. As a public sector reformer this is super interesting and could stimulate real dialogue about change. No doubt there will be mixed views on the proposed blueprint but as it is derived from design principles this allows for critical challenge against these and should at a minimum stimulate some interesting arguments across the board.
Development of Regional Plans: A Unified Strategy for Devolution
A central component of the proposed framework is the development of Regional Plans. Co-produced by all tiers of government and community actors, Regional Plans would serve as the foundation for further devolution, ensuring that powers are distributed in a way that reflects local needs and priorities. By aligning the objectives and responsibilities of different tiers of government, these plans would facilitate more effective and coordinated policymaking.
A Formal Framework for Redistributing Powers: Moving Beyond Ad-Hoc Deals
This framework would allow different tiers of government to propose and negotiate the redistribution of powers based on criteria such as the readiness and maturity of local systems. Moving away from the current deal-based approach to devolution, which is seen as inconsistent and limiting, the paper advocates for a ‘by default’ system. In this system, powers would be devolved automatically based on the demonstrated capacity and maturity of local institutions, rather than through negotiated deals.
Redistribution of Powers Across Tiers: Clarity and Specialisation
The paper outlines a proposed distribution of powers across three main tiers of government: regional authorities, local authorities, and hyper-local authorities. This will be the most contested argument the paper proposes as it would require serious unpicking of the current status quo of public service delivery and major changes to the local democracy ecosystem of governance.
Regional Authorities: Responsible for strategic functions that benefit from economies of scale and require coordination across wider geographic areas, such as housing, strategic planning, transport and infrastructure, and economic development.
Local Authorities: Focused on service delivery and local planning, ensuring that services are responsive to local needs and that communities are engaged in decision-making.
Hyper-Local Authorities: Managing community infrastructure and services that benefit from direct community participation and coproduction, fostering a stronger sense of community ownership.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Ensuring Continuous Improvement
There is provision for monitoring of success in the paper. Impact monitoring is definitely a subject I am interested in and it would be really interesting to bring together some of the arguments here with modern approaches to impact monitoring.
Monitoring the success of the proposed reforms in the paper is articulated through embedding subsidiarity and power-sharing as key metrics in the monitoring and evaluation framework for regional plans.
By tracking the performance of local and regional authorities against these metrics, policymakers can identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments to the governance framework. This iterative approach would help ensure that devolution delivers on its promises of improved public services, enhanced community engagement, and greater public trust.
Final thoughts
There will be much to unpick and unpack in the paper and I would sugget a deep dive as it brings together much progressive thought on these issues. and provides a roadmap for creating a more effective, accountable, and responsive local governance system.
The implementation of these proposals would require significant changes to the existing framework, but the potential benefits in terms of improved public services, enhanced community engagement, and greater public trust make the case for reform compelling.
Next up from me (and possibly some guest bloggers) will be overlaying how modern design practice, digital transformation and strong open data foundations could really supercharge devolution and the benefits it is likely to bring.
