I don’t think we need to redefine what we mean by devolution. I think that is quite straightforward, although what we call devolution in England is most often decentralisation, deconcentration or delegation. I agree we need different spatial and institutional arrangements but the principle of subsidiarity should take care of that. The problem with our very British approach to incrementalism by consent is that we have local and central actors who fundamentally oppose change and others who disagree about how it should be done. I would expect a strong government with a large mandate and a genuine commitment to ‘devolve by default’ to be able to cut through this and reorganise the state along sensible geographical and coterminous lines, without having to reinvent the language.
Thanks Mark. Only say - 80 per cent - of what we call devolution is actually devolution, in my view. And as I set out, when UK Government is criticised for quite innocuous activity (the policy commentary was quite critical of the Government's request for pothole data) I think that undermines the culture of devolution over time. I'm less so trying to redefine devolution, but rather explain the 20 per cent that is misattributed (or put another way, trying to add some depth).
PS, without putting to fine a point on it, I think you almost prove the point of the column when you say "I agree we need different spatial and institutional arrangements but the principle of subsidiarity should take care of that." If only it were that easy! That is both rational policy-making and, I'm afraid, not really what happens in practice?
I feel like your taxonomy is super important, particularly the distinction between ‘Recalibration’ and ‘Centralisation.’ Its really lucidly put. I feel like i haven’t really seen the vocabulary to describe the friction of moving powers *up* from local councils to Combined Authorities without lazily branding it a power grab.
However, I would push back on the safety of ‘Standardisation’ as a distinct category.
You argue that standardisation is often a benign corrective to sub-national dysfunction (e.g., the pothole data). But I feel like standardisation is almost famously the Trojan Horse of centralisation. The moment Whitehall mandates a standard, it seems to inevitably attaches a reporting regime, then a funding conditionality, and finally, a penalty for non-compliance. The "audit" culture of the center effectively recentralises control even if the delivery remains local.
If we accept standardisation as a neutral tool of system design, we risk ignoring that the entity *setting* the standard holds the sovereign power. There is a very thin line between "common standards" and the center dictating the exact shape of local delivery.
Furthermore, regarding the shift from a "campaign model" to a "governance model": while it certainly looks administratively sound, is it politically safe? The "campaign" creates the noise and political capital that protects devolution from the Treasury. If devolution becomes purely technocratic (a matter of silent system design) it might lose the vocal constituency needed to defend it when the "creeping recentralisation" you identify (like the consent regimes) begins to bite.
Interested in what you think about all of this, sorry for the long comment, I enjoyed the read!
Thanks for reading, Hoa, and your reflections - clearly you are the expert. You make a very good point on standardisation not solely being benign. I do suggest this when I write the below, but I could have been clearer that it can function both as you describe, but also in a benign fashion.
“Standardisation can also be viewed as the antithesis of devolution, which by design provides some tolerance of place-specific actions, when it is more benign and there is something plainly wrong with our governance arrangements.”
The “more” is doing heavily lifting; it is not solely benign, but can be another form of exercising control.
On the campaign model, I don’t think the UK Government is culturally used to being criticised, because local authorities have never been able to mount a successful challenge. With more-high profile, autonomous mayors, that is less the case. So in the campaign model, I am more highlighting - as you succinctly put - that is is easier to lazily brand an activity as a power grab, but that is corrosive.
I haven’t been able to articulate it yet, and didn’t include it in the piece, but there is something to be said that the federal or unitary state must always been seen to be statesman-like, whereas there is more latitude for lower-tier institutions to be more recalcitrant. As strategic authorities mature, I think being seen as more statesman-like would give them more credibility and durability.
I don’t think we need to redefine what we mean by devolution. I think that is quite straightforward, although what we call devolution in England is most often decentralisation, deconcentration or delegation. I agree we need different spatial and institutional arrangements but the principle of subsidiarity should take care of that. The problem with our very British approach to incrementalism by consent is that we have local and central actors who fundamentally oppose change and others who disagree about how it should be done. I would expect a strong government with a large mandate and a genuine commitment to ‘devolve by default’ to be able to cut through this and reorganise the state along sensible geographical and coterminous lines, without having to reinvent the language.
Thanks Mark. Only say - 80 per cent - of what we call devolution is actually devolution, in my view. And as I set out, when UK Government is criticised for quite innocuous activity (the policy commentary was quite critical of the Government's request for pothole data) I think that undermines the culture of devolution over time. I'm less so trying to redefine devolution, but rather explain the 20 per cent that is misattributed (or put another way, trying to add some depth).
PS, without putting to fine a point on it, I think you almost prove the point of the column when you say "I agree we need different spatial and institutional arrangements but the principle of subsidiarity should take care of that." If only it were that easy! That is both rational policy-making and, I'm afraid, not really what happens in practice?
I feel like your taxonomy is super important, particularly the distinction between ‘Recalibration’ and ‘Centralisation.’ Its really lucidly put. I feel like i haven’t really seen the vocabulary to describe the friction of moving powers *up* from local councils to Combined Authorities without lazily branding it a power grab.
However, I would push back on the safety of ‘Standardisation’ as a distinct category.
You argue that standardisation is often a benign corrective to sub-national dysfunction (e.g., the pothole data). But I feel like standardisation is almost famously the Trojan Horse of centralisation. The moment Whitehall mandates a standard, it seems to inevitably attaches a reporting regime, then a funding conditionality, and finally, a penalty for non-compliance. The "audit" culture of the center effectively recentralises control even if the delivery remains local.
If we accept standardisation as a neutral tool of system design, we risk ignoring that the entity *setting* the standard holds the sovereign power. There is a very thin line between "common standards" and the center dictating the exact shape of local delivery.
Furthermore, regarding the shift from a "campaign model" to a "governance model": while it certainly looks administratively sound, is it politically safe? The "campaign" creates the noise and political capital that protects devolution from the Treasury. If devolution becomes purely technocratic (a matter of silent system design) it might lose the vocal constituency needed to defend it when the "creeping recentralisation" you identify (like the consent regimes) begins to bite.
Interested in what you think about all of this, sorry for the long comment, I enjoyed the read!
Thanks for reading, Hoa, and your reflections - clearly you are the expert. You make a very good point on standardisation not solely being benign. I do suggest this when I write the below, but I could have been clearer that it can function both as you describe, but also in a benign fashion.
“Standardisation can also be viewed as the antithesis of devolution, which by design provides some tolerance of place-specific actions, when it is more benign and there is something plainly wrong with our governance arrangements.”
The “more” is doing heavily lifting; it is not solely benign, but can be another form of exercising control.
On the campaign model, I don’t think the UK Government is culturally used to being criticised, because local authorities have never been able to mount a successful challenge. With more-high profile, autonomous mayors, that is less the case. So in the campaign model, I am more highlighting - as you succinctly put - that is is easier to lazily brand an activity as a power grab, but that is corrosive.
I haven’t been able to articulate it yet, and didn’t include it in the piece, but there is something to be said that the federal or unitary state must always been seen to be statesman-like, whereas there is more latitude for lower-tier institutions to be more recalcitrant. As strategic authorities mature, I think being seen as more statesman-like would give them more credibility and durability.
That’s all super interesting. Really looking forward to reading more of your writing!