‘Walking on the bright side’ of English devolution: Exploring a critical space for innovation and policy effectiveness at the sub-national tier
In this piece we make the case for optimism and a more positive outlook for English devolution, despite its chequered past. Big plans for English devolution are not new in British constitutional change. We have been here before with successive governments promising a ‘devolution revolution’ and local control over place-based initiatives.
What then tends to happen are a series of social science commentaries about why the ambition of these plans have not been realised. Social science research on English devolution has often focussed on the deep structural barriers preventing successful constitutional reform, including a highly centralised and siloed Westminster system of government, political short termism and apathy on the part of citizens for elected local structures. Indeed, our own scholarship has sometimes contributed to this doom and gloom.
In the wake of the Government’s ‘English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill’ (2025) it might be forgivable for going into the next phase of English devolution with dampened enthusiasm and low aspirations. This is especially true given the challenging political context within which these reforms are taking place, i.e. public spending cuts, local government on its knees, rising geographical inequalities, a growing populist anti-government mentality, disenfranchised electorate and global tensions and geopolitics.
Adding to this complexity, the Bill might also be criticised for not allocating enough money (there never is) and retaining too much power at the Centre (it always does). There are persistent questions about local capacity to lead and innovate in new and complex policy spaces such as public health and disquiet about power being sucked up to Mayoral strategic authorities, potentially undermining control within local councils.
However, inspired by the emerging field of ‘Positive Public Policy’ (PoPP) we offer a more optimistic narrative about the future of English devolution. Instead of looking at all the problems and pitfalls, we choose here to explore the ‘cracks and fissures’ that might be exploited in pursuit of a more constructive agenda for English devolution, focussed on innovation and the application of robust social science to help improve policy effectiveness.
PoPP provides a conceptual toolkit through which to challenge the negativity assumptions which are intellectually entrenched within political science and public policy. This approach does not ignore the challenges and pitfalls of UK policy making. Instead, it shifts the analytical lens away from a focus on path dependent failure towards considering the possibility of policy success and opportunity. In doing so we champion a more constructive dialogue between research and practice to look for solutions to underpin more effective government. Below we explore the potential for a more positive English devolution trajectory through three key areas, namely local discretion over funding and decisions, creative practice in complex problem spaces using innovative social science and the potential for effective local leadership through a more humane governance. Each is discussed in turn.
Local discretion over funding and decisions
A lack of funding and limited discretion have always been a central criticism of government plans for English devolution. However, a recent Economic and Social Research Council project ‘Improving Public Funding Allocation to Reduce Geographical Inequalities’, suggested that these problems are largely recognised and accepted by national, subnational and local policymakers, and there is a genuine appetite for reform. The project’s report sets out a series of incremental, moderate and radical recommendations to improved ways to allocate public funding within and between different areas in England to reduce geographical inequalities and enable more places to contribute meaningfully to national economic growth and renewal. This research shows that there are options and opportunities for improving the financial status quo. For example, a first step in the right direction has been the inclusion of so-called Integrated Settlements, whereby leading mayoral authorities (including London, Greater Manchester, and the West Midlands) are moving towards ‘single pot’ funding, giving them significantly more freedom to choose how to spend money across their entire region.
Creative practice utilising innovative social science
There is growing evidence that for the government’s devolution agenda to unlock growth, it must engage directly with the health of the population. In recognition, the Bill includes a duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities and identifies health as a core competence for strategic authorities. The Health Foundation argues that,
Yet, there are questions about the capacity and accountability of devolved structures to meet this new and challenging expectation. On a more positive note, because of the globally innovative work done by the ‘Tackling the root causes upstream of unhealthy urban development’ (TRUUD) research project, local decision makers now have a tool that enables them to think about health outcomes alongside all the other considerations when making decisions about urban development and infrastructure. This ‘ground-breaking’ development offers scope for innovation and creative new practice at the sub-national tier to promote preventative public health in a new core competency for strategic authorities.
Effective local leadership and more humane governance
Some have expressed a concern that the Bill could ‘suck up’ powers from local councils, concentrating decision-making in the hands of regional mayors and strategic authorities rather than empowering communities. This has the potential to create local tensions and disputes. However, Mayors have always had to partner with and work through local authorities to achieve their objectives. They have a key role as facilitator in their localities by utilising their hard and soft power to secure desired outcomes. This relational aspect of policy making will be incredibly significant when trying to do business in turbulent times. Being more human-centred, and operating with more care and compassion, can help to develop a much more human(e) approach to how we govern. This involves increasing a capacity to cope with complexity by being more empathetic and working with understanding and humility. Through a more human(e) approach, mayors can play a critical role in shaping new approaches to public policy and practice.
So, in conclusion, if we can think about the next phase of English devolution by drawing on the opportunities, potentials and a positive mindset, instead of the problems and pitfalls we may break the path dependent trajectory of disappointment with English constitutional change.
About the authors
Sarah Ayres is Professor of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Bristol. Working at the intersection between political science and regional studies, her research has examined how diverse actors solve complex problems through collaboration and local leadership. She specialises in Whitehall decision making, collaborative governance and English devolution.
John Boswell is Professor in Politics at the University of Southampton. His interests centre around contemporary issues and themes in democratic governance and public policy. His research is generally qualitative and interpretive in nature.
Paul Cairney is Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling. He is a specialist in British politics and public policy, often focusing on the ways in which policy studies can explain the use of evidence in politics and policy, and how policymakers translate broad long term aims into evidence-informed objectives. He is currently the principal investigator of FORTH2O which investigates how to foster collaborative, and systems approaches to policy problems.
Catherine Durose is Professor of Public Policy, and Co-Director of the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy, Practice and Place at the University of Liverpool. She is recognised as a leading expert on urban governance and public policy, and has written widely on policy design and implementation, devolution, urban transformation, social and democratic innovation, participation and community ownership.
Ian C. Elliott is Senior Lecturer of Public Administration at the Centre for Public Policy, University of Glasgow and co-Editor-in-Chief of Public Administration and Development. His research includes the strategic state and mission-led government as well as the teaching of public administration.
Matthew Flinders is Professor of Politics and Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre at the University of Sheffield. He is also Vice-President of the Political Studies Association and Chair of the Universities Policy Engagement Network. He is the author or editor of fourteen books and over 200 peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters. He has also written and presented a number of documentaries and is a regular contributor to the Times Higher.
Steve Martin is Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at Cardiff University. He has a distinguished track record of applied policy research and providing strategic advice to governments across the UK and internationally. Steve has established and directed two major research centres and published more than 150 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. He was a member of the UK’s What Works Council and has a particular interest in promoting evidence use by policy makers.
Liz Richardson is a Professor of Public Administration at the University of Manchester. Her research interests include participatory urban governance; local politics and local government; public services; and public policy. She has an interest in methodological innovation including participatory research approaches, and experimental methods.
Photo Credit: Ian Taylor on Unsplash