Territory, Power and Statecraft: Understanding English Devolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Regional Studies ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20 Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders & Mark Sandford To cite this article: Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders & Mark Sandford (2017): Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution, Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 07 Sep 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 483 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20 Download by: [University of Sheffield] Date: 06 October 2017, At: 06:46 REGIONAL STUDIES, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution Sarah Ayresa , Matthew Flindersb and Mark Sandfordc ABSTRACT In 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. KEYWORDS governance; statecraft; devolution; England; power; Jim Bulpitt JEL D7, G38, H7, R5 HISTORY Received 5 October 2016; in revised form 3 July 2017 INTRODUCTION introduction of an elected Mayor and Assembly in London (Flinders, 2009; Sandford, 2016b). And yet the paradox of Over recent decades, many countries have witnessed the these devolutionary measures was that (1) they were intro- decentralization of state functions in the form of both pol- duced within the constitutional parameters of the West- itical devolution and administrative deconcentration minster Model; and (2) they were periphery focused in (Asthana, 2013). Hooghe et al. (2016), for example, assert geographical terms with little obvious thought to how by that there has been a global trend towards decentralization. far the largest constituent nation of the UK (i.e., England) Of the 52 countries they examined, two-thirds have wit- might be included. In May 2015, a Conservative govern- nessed an increase in their levels of regional authority. ment was elected with manifesto commitments ‘to devolve Such restructuring is viewed by commentators as a response powers and budgets to boost local growth in England’ to a variety of pressures including managing distinct subna- (Conservative Party, 2015, p. 1). Since then the govern- tional identities and cultures (Tang & Huhe, 2016), miti- ment has rapidly initiated a potentially far-reaching reform Downloaded by [University of Sheffield] at 06:46 06 October 2017 gating economic diversity (Martin, Pike, Tyler, & agenda, statutorily underpinned by the Cities and Local Gardiner, 2016), relieving the political and bureaucratic Government Devolution Act 2016. burden associated with centralization (Organisation for The aim of this paper is to analyze whether the post- Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015 reforms to English governance have transformed 2015), and changing political views on the contribution centre–periphery relationships, and whether the approach of decentralization to achieving economic and social pol- of the current Conservative government is markedly differ- icies (Hambleton, 2015; Jessop, 2016). In recent years ent to that employed by previous UK governments. It the UK has witnessed far-reaching devolutionary reforms draws upon the analytical framework and historical lens to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the developed by Jim Bulpitt in his Territory and Power in the CONTACT a (Corresponding author) [email protected] School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. b m.flinders@sheffield.ac.uk Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. c [email protected] House of Commons Library, London, UK. © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 Sarah Ayres et al. United Kingdom (1983). Bulpitt adopted the controversial English devolution policy, which highlights the long- position that the study of UK territorial politics had over- term absence of any clear constitutional vision. Then it out- emphasized the role of ideas and ideology, to the detriment lines Bulpitt’s ‘statecraft approach’ to understanding of a far more basic focus on the art of governing and prac- centre–periphery relationships and argues that it has tical politics – what he called statecraft. Crucially, he sought much to offer a contemporary analysis of UK territorial to examine territorial relations through a historical analysis politics. The third section sets out the paper’s methodo- of territorial politics in the UK and from the perspective of logical approach, while the fourth section presents the central government. For Bulpitt, territorial politics has empirical analysis, reflecting the core themes in Bulpitt’s been characterized by the relationship between the ‘centre’ thesis: governing codes, political resources and governing and ‘periphery’. The centre is defined as a ‘political admin- strategies. This supports the core conclusion that the ‘devo- istrative community of senior ministers and top civil ser- lution revolution’ should actually be interpreted as a con- vants’ and ‘the periphery, or country, was usually, from tinuation of the dual polity equilibrium that has the centre’s viewpoint, all other places’ (p. 3). He makes a characterized UK territorial politics for at least half a cen- distinction between ‘high politics’ and ‘low politics’. The tury. The final section reflects upon the broader empirical former involve matters that are regarded as primarily the and theoretical implications of this argument. responsibility of the centre and might include, for example, macro-economic policy and tax-raising powers. The latter CONTEXT covers those residual matters that in normal circumstances could be left to interests on the periphery. Bulpitt argued England has been a landscape of almost permanent admin- that the centre’s operational code is determined primarily istrative reconfiguration and rescaling during the second by its desire for autonomy over high politics and the reci- half of the 20th century (e.g., Banks, 1971; Garside & procal granting of control to the periphery over low politics. Hebbert, 1989; Mawson & Bradbury, 2006). Devolution He described the separation of powers between centre/per- in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was associated iphery and high/low politics as a ‘Dual Polity’ (p. 3). Much with identity and democratic representation, and the devo- of what shapes territorial politics could be explained by lution debate in those areas has been founded upon the cre- challenges to the dual polity equilibrium and the response ation of strong subnational institutions with democratic of the centre. His framework has great contemporary rel- elections, significant policy responsibilities and accepted evance in that it offers a historically grounded framework status within the unwritten UK constitution. This bot- to capture the challenges and changes in centre–periphery tom-up public pressure has been almost entirely absent relations in England. within England. Over at least the past 50 years, UK gov- The analysis presented in this paper draws upon the ernments of various colours have sought to deconcentrate findings of three research projects undertaken between powers and functions to regional or local tiers of govern- March 2015 and August 2016. The core conclusion is ment. The Labour governments of the 1960s established that English governance sits within a well-established fra- regional economic and planning councils for nine regions mework of centre–periphery relationships. Claims regard- in England. These developed a considerable intelligence ing the ‘revolutionary’ nature of this agenda are not capacity but lacked political and economic clout, eventually therefore sustainable. What is identified is the emergence being abolished in 1979 (Hogwood & Keating, 1982). of an increasingly complex institutional landscape across Under the Margaret Thatcher Conservative governments, Downloaded by [University of Sheffield] at 06:46 06 October 2017 England, lack of public engagement or public understand- private-sector, geographically focused urban development ing, and even a pushback from local actors