Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:38:04.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effective Devolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Angus Armstrong*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Executive summary

Brexit creates deep challenges for the UK's structure of governance; not least concerning the degree and manner in which powers are devolved within one of the most centralised countries in the world. Departing from the EU is likely to exacerbate regional inequalities and possibly social divide, while at the same time leading to further centralisation of powers, at least in the short term. Most Brexit analysis looks at the reorientation of the UK's external relationships, but the most significant impact may be on its internal constitutional affairs.

While it is generally agreed that the UK needs more devolution, there is little discussion about how and why it sometimes succeeds, but also sometimes falls short of expectations. Ever since Adam Smith it has been known that economic prosperity, justice, and social cooperation are mutually reinforcing. Therefore, policy must be built around community and a sense of belonging, rather than a collection of anonymous individuals. The Core Design Principles set out by Elinor Ostrom provide a framework to transform governance structure at every level from the smallest communities all the way to parliament.

Necessary institutional changes include giving local authorities much greater control over revenue-raising powers and therefore the services they wish to support. National legislatures must have the power to borrow for investment without limit, but with sole responsibility for repayment, to enhance local political accountability. A statutory body should be established, including representatives of the devolved assemblies and English regions, to address regional disparities, and there should be a much stronger regional presence in decision-making by HM Treasury and the Bank of England.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper has benefited from significant and substantive comments from Jim Gallagher (Universities of Glasgow, St Andrews and Oxford). Disclaimer: The views, judgements and policy proposals expressed in this chapter are those of the author, but not necessarily those of the critical commentator, Gatehouse Advisory Partners, Llewellyn Consulting, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

References

Armstrong, A. and Ebell, M. (2014), ‘Monetary unions and fiscal constraints’, National Institute Economic Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K.J. (1992), ‘Social responsibility and economic efficiency’, Public Policy.Google Scholar
Forman-Barzilai, F. (2010), Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy: Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U. and Rustichini, A. (2000), ‘A fine is a price’, Journal of Legal Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbeck, A. and Snower, D.J. (2019), ‘Social foundations of economic activity’, mimeo.Google Scholar
Menon, A. and Bevington, M. (2019), ‘The real meaning of Brexit’, Prospect Magazine: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/what-brexit-means-britain-towns-uk-prosperity.Google Scholar
Oates, W.E. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovic.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.S. (2019), This View of Life: completing the Darwinian Revolution, Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.S., Ostrom, E., Cox, M. (2013), ‘Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E.O. and Wilson, D.S. (2007), ‘Rethinking the foundations of sociobiology’, The Quarterly Review of Biology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar