This blog was originally written for The Academy of Social Sciences,
Dr Jack Newman of the University of Liverpool, Dr Charlotte Hoole of the University of Birmingham, and Dr Sam Warner of the University of Bristol analyse some difficult questions about mayoral capacity and geographic inequality. They suggest that Andy Burnham’s English Devolution plans could be a defining moment but argue that in the process we must be careful not to create new geographical divides or new structural inequalities.
As Burnham establishes No. 10 North and posts civil servants to mayors’ offices, bigger questions arise about mayoral capacity and geographic inequality.
In his first month as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has promised growth in every postcode and a rewiring of the state to localise power. While these two priorities sound like two sides of the same coin, there is a potential tension between them. The recent history of English devolution has focused on improving productivity in ‘trailblazer’ city-regions, places which – in Whitehall’s eyes – have earned the opportunity of enhanced powers. Yet, if devolution is pursued by prioritising places that are already striding ahead, it could create new asymmetries and risk leaving some places even further behind. This is a tension we explore in our new paper, which looks at how capacity-building in England’s devolution agenda could act as a counterweight to this risk – or end up reinforcing it.
Burnham’s emphasis on ‘growth in every postcode’ suggests he is alive to this challenge. And credit where credit’s due: the recent devolution announcements are a bold set of plans that England has been crying out for. The plans include:
- Devolving more powers and control over local services, transport, housing and skills policy, particularly 16-19 technical education.
- Granting metro-mayors control over a share of locally raised income tax and business rates as a significant step toward greater fiscal devolution.
- Building strong, capable and accountable strategic and local authorities as the bedrock of a new model of government.
This agenda could offer a genuine shift of power. It has the potential to change politics and public policy in the UK to be more place-based, joined-up and better integrated. There is an opportunity to transform the Whitehall mindset, with the stated principle to ‘devolve by default’, which would require central government to justify retaining control over new or redesigned initiatives.
But the risks must be managed. England is a patchwork of different places at different stages of the devolution journey. This means that some regions – Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, for example – are likely to forge ahead, using their new powers to deliver major transport projects and skills agendas, reaping the rewards of the increased growth and tax receipts, driving positive feedback loops. These places also more naturally benefit from the agglomeration effects associated with relatively productive city-regions.
Crucially, these places will be able to build up the teams of officials needed to deliver on these major new agendas. This means public servants with relevant experience and the right skills, especially in data analysis. These people are in short supply and tend to gravitate to hubs of existing activity. They are more likely to want to go into national government or the private sector. The devolution agenda may start to change this, but those who do choose combined authorities often want to live in the big cities and work in the authorities with real power and money.
Burnham’s plans contend that ‘strategic authorities are only as strong as the local authorities that constitute them’. Local government has struggled to recruit high calibre candidates with sought after skillsets, in part a consequence of the erosion of local government powers and capacity over time. Former Labour ministers admit that there have been errors in the past. If the perception grows that devolved powers are being ‘sucked up’ from local to strategic authorities, this situation could be hard to overcome. There is already considerable unevenness in capability and capacity across the country, highlighted by the NAO as a priority for government. The accountability challenge has not gone away.
In smaller cities like Stoke, Hull, and Plymouth, and rural areas, like Cornwall, Cumbria, and East Anglia, these challenges are likely to be particularly acute. Such places often lack a history of working together, have far smaller budgets and fewer powers and thus struggle to build up their capacity. This could drive a new type of geographical inequality in which some places are better placed to reap the rewards of devolution than others.
In our new paper, we argue that to avoid these risks, the Burnham government needs to turbocharge capacity building in the places that need it most. Our policy analysis of the English devolution agenda so far suggests that capacity-building has been largely detached from concerns about spatial inequality, and there has been a lack of attention to the particular challenges faced at different levels of governance. We call for a national strategy based on the following:
1. A systemic conception of governance capacity that is not limited to the internal resources and competencies of local and regional government. We contend that capacity should be understood as the ability of local institutions to access, align and mobilise the wider capacities of the place.
2. A practical conceptualisation of capacity that is neither narrow nor vague and instead disaggregates governance capacity into its component parts – analytical, regulatory, coordination, delivery, operational and political. This would enable a more robust and place-sensitive assessment of need.
3. Clarification of central, regional and local responsibilities would allow policymakers to determine which capacities require central investment and support, and which are best developed locally through place-based leadership and shared learning.
4. An explicit and targeted focus on tackling the ‘political spatial inequalities’ that currently mean some areas are better placed than others to benefit from the opportunities of enhanced devolution.
These principles could be the basis for a coherent, needs-based, and place-sensitive national strategy for building local capacity. This would be focused on strengthening whole governance systems and reducing territorial inequalities, rather than rewarding areas that already possess the greatest capacity.
The new government has already shown an interest in the capacity question with the announcement of a civil service secondment scheme. Initially a pilot scheme, it proposes that existing mayoral authorities will receive between five and ten civil servants on a 6-9-month secondment. Further promising initiatives include a Yorkshire and Humber Civil Service Fast Stream, expanding the Civil Service Future Leaders Scheme to mayoral and local authority officials, and a ‘Digital Devolution’ agenda to build AI and data capacity in mayoral authorities.
The statement of intent in the secondment scheme is significant, and it is encouraging that all mayoral authorities are eligible for the support, rather than just piloting with the most advanced. However, there is again a failure to properly assess and meet capacity needs, and a lack of long-term, joined-up strategy for addressing the mayoral capacity challenge. Local government also needs to feature more prominently in this agenda if the systemic qualities of governance capacity are taken seriously. Burnham is only a month in power, and this is of course only an initial step. But it is essential that these new policies are developed into a needs-based capacity strategy, rather than simply adding to the uncoordinated heap of existing programmes our analysis identifies.
Burnham’s wider devolution agenda is the latest step in a story that has been building since the start of the century. The UK’s historically centralised system is starting to shift. The latest plans on English devolution could be a real defining moment. While devolution to Scotland and Wales only shrank Whitehall’s geographical reach, the new reforms could fundamentally change its function. It could be the biggest change at the top since the end of the British Empire.
In this potentially momentous moment, it is essential that new geographical divides are not opened across the UK, nor new structural inequalities created. If some places are left behind, their revenge will come at the ballot box. The traditional political parties are unlikely to be the beneficiaries.
This blog was originally written for The Academy of Social Sciences Blog and was based on this article in the Journal of Contemporary Social Science.
This blog was written by Charlotte Hoole, Research Fellow at City-REDI, University of Birmingham, Dr Jack Newman of the University of Liverpool and Dr Sam Warner of the University of Bristol.
Find out more about the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.