Devolution has been at the core of the UK government’s initiatives to reduce regional inequality across the country. The Conservatives’ ‘Levelling up’ agenda was built around it, and Labour’s plan to ‘Power Up Britain’ also relies on the empowerment of local and sub-regional authorities and communities, based upon an analysis that areas have been ‘held back’ by decisions being taken in Westminster and Whitehall. In different guises, successive UK governments have created new structures, transferred policy responsibilities, and negotiated innovative deals to channel funding to cities and regions. Along with this comes a new vocabulary. Combined authorities, directly-elected metro mayors, City deals, growth deals, and trailblazer deals are all part of an apparent commitment to empower local leaders and communities and to reduce the large regional disparities that exist within England and across the UK. But new structures and terminology are not enough. To effectively pursue an agenda which narrows regional inequality, the UK government must expand its scope beyond economic indicators; engage with stakeholders and citizens to determine the extent of equality they wish to see; and thoroughly assess the conditions for devolution to truly bridge regional disparities. To reflect on these challenges, this piece draws upon some international lessons, based on the author’s extensive research on the comparative politics of devolution.
More than economic inequality
Regional disparities fuel territorial grievances and undermine the cohesion of a country; addressing them is wise. However, the UK government understands geographical differences mainly in economic terms and focuses its agenda on productivity, economic growth, and household income. While the UK certainly has high economic regional disparities, differences between local areas and regions are not limited to the economy. ‘Postcode lotteries’ exist in the access to many public services such as high-quality schooling, medical care, or broadband access. Moreover, there are disparities in life expectancy, mortality rates, educational performance, various environmental indicators, housing conditions, and safety across England and the UK. The extent to which disparities in life expectancy, mortality, or educational outcomes are shaped by economic disparities and by the differences in access to public services across the country has not been fully established. But all of those determine opportunity and well-being across the country and must be part of any story about regional disparities in the UK.
The UK government’s narrative is that territorial differences are particularly high in the UK. The truth is that many other countries, with some exceptions (for instance, in Scandinavia), face similar challenges. Germany, for instance, was shocked to see significant regional differences in school children’s performance in international student assessments (notably the OECD’s PISA study) in the early 2000s, and little improvement since.
What degree of equality is desirable?
Labour’s Plan to ‘Power Up Britain’ aims at narrowing regional inequality across the UK, as did the Conservatives’ ‘Levelling Up’ agenda. But what is the ultimate goal? At what point would regional inequalities be considered sufficiently addressed so that the plan can be seen as successful?
This is a tricky question, and an open one in many countries. Ultimately, how much difference is acceptable in a society is a question whose answer must be provided by that society. This requires knowing what people want, how much equality they find desirable, and how much inequality they see as acceptable. When asked about it in general terms, people usually welcome devolution but also wish for uniformity. A survey conducted in several regions across Western Europe, for instance, shows that even in Scotland, with its strong national identity, most people want uniform policies across the UK. German citizens, likewise, support regional government but have a strong desire for uniformity, as studies have repeatedly shown.
Yet, regional differences may also reflect diverse citizen preferences or needs—and may not be a bad thing as such. While citizens generally seem to dislike disparities, finding out what degree of uniformity is desired, and how much variation would be welcome or at least acceptable, however, is more challenging. It would be important to find answers to that question to determine whether Labour’s plan to ‘Power Up Britain’ is directed at delivering what people want.
Can devolution reduce regional inequality in the UK?
This notwithstanding, it is far from obvious that devolution alleviates the many regional disparities in the UK in the first place. Empirical evidence is inconclusive. In the UK, the devolution of policymaking powers to Scotland and Wales not only led to regional variations in education and health policy. It also seems to have increased differences in hospital waiting times and student performance between England, Scotland, and Wales. For instance, right after major devolution reforms, between 2001 and 2004, Welsh residents had to face much longer hospital waiting times than those in England and Scotland (see here). As the OECD Regional Database shows, educational attainment varies significantly across regions in countries like Australia, Canada, and Germany, where authority over education is devolved to states, provinces, and Länder. In Spain, however, where regional authority was transferred to the Autonomous Communities more recently, differences in educational attainment across regions have remained modest. Health care devolution in Italy and Spain, likewise, has not exacerbated (Costa-Font & Rico, 2006) regional health disparities, and could even reduce (Di Novi, Piacenza, Robone, & Turati, 2019) such territorial inequalities. There is evidence, moreover, that poorer localities in several OECD and EU countries were able to catch up with higher-income areas when given economic powers. Only a few comparative or longitudinal studies exist, however, and more research on the matter is needed.
Devolution is about the scale of public service delivery: which services are provided by local or regional government, and which services remain under central government control. For services that are devolved, there are two very important questions: how much scope local and regional governments have in shaping the services they are expected to deliver, and whether they have the resources to fund and sustain them. If the bulk of policy is still decided in London, devolution cannot deliver much; neither, and this is a critical point in the UK context, can it if inadequately funded. Hence, funding needs to be recurrent and long-term. Another option is to transfer fiscal powers, which would make local leaders more accountable. Yet, fiscal autonomy may exacerbate regional inequality due to the uneven fiscal capacity of local authorities. This would call for some form of fiscal equalisation. Most federal countries have such schemes, with those in Australia and Germany being particularly generous. However, fiscal equalisation is not easy to implement and is not without contestation.
Even if there is meaningful devolution, its success is still contingent on the capability and willingness of local leaders to assume responsibility and address the challenges within their locality. If they assume leadership, public services may still vary across the country, but this could be because priorities and needs differ. More importantly, outcomes such as household income, employment, or life expectancy could still be expected to converge if services are tailored to local circumstances.
In summary, the UK government would be well advised to broaden its focus on regional disparities so it looks beyond a narrow bundle of economic indicators; find out how much regional equality the British people want; and carefully examine the conditions under which devolution can be an effective way to achieve that.
Connect with the Author
: Johanna Schnabel 
: jos38.bsky.social 
: 0000-0002-6160-1083