The London School of Economics and Political Science Spaces of regionalism and the rescaling of government; A theoretical framework with British cases Sylvia Alexandra Roberta Tijmstra A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography and Environment of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, July 2011 1 | P a g e Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 | P a g e Abstract In recent decades, regional pressures for stronger autonomy have encouraged a number of central and federal governments around the world to devolve powers and resources downwards to the regional level. The contemporary revival of regionalist movements and the simultaneous tendency towards greater government decentralisation have received considerable academic attention. Most of these contributions present detailed accounts of the processes of regional mobilisation and devolution in a specific region or set of regions. Although these analytical stories tell us a lot about the distinctive aspects of a particular case, they do not, in general, present a coherent theoretical account that would allow us to study the origins of these two interrelated but distinctive trends in a structured way. This thesis aims to make a contribution towards such an account. Building on the literature on political legitimacy and social movements, this study develops a tripartite typology of regionalisms which allows us to analyse and compare the origins of regional autonomy movements across different contexts. In addition, it seeks to show that an actor-based rational choice approach to the process of regionalist accommodation and non-accommodation can help us gain a better understanding of the mechanisms through which such demands influence the shape of the government system. The usefulness of the resulting theoretical framework is demonstrated by applying it to the contemporary history of regionalism and devolution in mainland Britain. 3 | P a g e Acknowledgements The process of writing a PhD thesis is a long and winding road, fraught with dead-ends and cul-de-sacs. For all the things I wish I would have done differently, I remain convinced of one thing: I chose the right subject matter. I am part Dutch, but neither I nor either of my parents grew up in the Netherlands. I am part Belgian, but don’t feel any connection to the country. I am part Frisian, but don’t speak or understand the language. I am part Flemish, but grew up in a French-speaking suburb of Brussels. If given the choice I would rather vote in the British general elections than partake in the Dutch ones, yet I have no desire to apply for a British passport. Both my children currently have dual nationality and I can honestly say that that I am indifferent as to which of these identities they will eventual choose to adopt. Taken together, I think it is therefore fair to say that I am at best a reluctant member of my ‘imagined’ national community, which ever community that may be. Paradoxically, nationalisms and regionalisms have however been an important part of my life for as long as I can remember. Growing up in Brussels, regional nationalisms were a very real and tangible part of my early childhood. Simultaneously, a more subtle language battle was taking place within the confines of our family home. Despite her often humorous propensity to muddle up Dutch sayings, any hint of a Flemish accent was met with considerable disdain and firm correction by my Dutch mother. Faced with such hostility, my Dutch-Flemish father did what any sensible man would do: he formally capitulated, while secretly encouraging us to sing Flemish nationalist songs at family gathering. Amid this cacophony of nationalisms, my paternal grandfather desperately tried to teach us about the history of the proud Frisian people and the true origins of the Tijmstra name. I have always suspected that this insistence on our Frisian heritage was borne out of a desire to correct a perceived failing in my father’s upbringing. If this was indeed the case, my grandfather need not have worried. 4 | P a g e Much to my surprise, and perhaps his own, my father, the man who had successfully dissuade my mother from naming either of his daughters Frouwkjen or Ytske 1, was genuinely disappointed when we decided to give his first grandson the Dutch version of his Frisian first name. In many respects, my time at the LSE has thus been a highly rewarding opportunity to explore a puzzle that continues to personally fascinate me. The experience has been made all the more special by a number of extraordinary people who were there to enjoy/endure it with me. First and foremost, my heartfelt thanks go out to my wonderful supervisor, Professor Andrés Rodríguez-Pose. In the Netherlands, a PhD supervisor is sometimes affectionately referred to as a doktorvater and that word certainly reflects the role Andrés has played in my life over the past years. Like a true father, he has been endlessly supportive and generous with his time, if perhaps a bit too willing to overlook the small and not-so-small failings on my part. Fortunately critics are never in short supply in the academic world, while loyal supporters are few and far between. So thanks Andrés for the faith you have had in me and the help you have given me throughout my time at the LSE. On a different note, I would also like to use this opportunity to thank one of my most loyal and effective critics: Professor Ian Gordon. Your disapproving snorts and ability to expose fatal weaknesses through seemingly innocent questions has become the stuff of legends within the PhD community. If you do ever decide to leave this place, please know that you will be sorely missed! Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my husband, Martijn van der Heijden, for standing by me during what have been some of the most beautiful but certainly also the most challenging years of my life. I can honestly say I could not have done it without you. 1 By the way, thanks again for that dad; it really is wonderful to have at least one name people can pronounce! 5 | P a g e Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 4 List of tables ................................................................................................................. 8 List of figures .............................................................................................................. 11 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 13 1.1. Main arguments ............................................................................................ 14 1.1.1. Regionalism as the re-scaling of political legitimacy .............................. 16 1.1.2. Regionalist accommodation as a veto game .......................................... 22 1.2. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................... 28 2. Devolution in theoretical perspective ................................................................. 30 2.1. Popular demands for greater regional autonomy .......................................... 31 2.1.1. The rescaling of legitimacy .................................................................... 33 2.1.2. Legitimacy as a theoretical concept ....................................................... 35 2.1.3. Legitimacy beyond the nation-state ....................................................... 36 2.1.4. A typology of regionalisms ..................................................................... 40 2.1.5. Regionalism after devolution.................................................................. 43 2.2. Regionalism and the rescaling of government .............................................. 46 2.2.1. Identifying the relevant veto players. ...................................................... 48 2.2.2. ‘Measuring’ the preferences of individual and collective veto players ..... 51 2.2.3. Act-based incentives ............................................................................. 56 2.2.4. Outcome-based incentives .................................................................... 60 2.2.5. Incentive structures and the behaviour of partisan veto players ............. 61 2.3. Research design ........................................................................................... 67 2.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 71 3. The waxing and waning of regionalism in mainland Britain (1945-1997) ...........