IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v7y2022i3p75-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“The System Is the System, Isn’t It?”: The Case for a Just Devolution

Author

Listed:
  • Liam O'Farrell

    (Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, UK)

  • Roman Zwicky

    (Center for Democracy Studies Aarau, University of Zurich, Switzerland)

Abstract

How do actors involved in decision-making around urban planning relate to devolution? How do they perceive external forces influencing their cities, and how can the interventions they make be better oriented towards tackling inequalities? We reflect on these questions with data from interviews conducted with urban leaders and housing and development policy stakeholders in the second cities of Birmingham, UK, and Lyon, France. We compare narratives and assess how they relate to the concept of spatial justice in differing contexts of devolution. Drawing from findings in two cities with distinct governance structures, we uncover common issues with neoliberal, growth-oriented mindsets among key actors, despite contrasting rhetoric around social justice. We contend that there is thus a need to define mechanisms for making devolution more attentive to inequalities. This could be achieved through incorporating the concept of spatial justice into devolution strategies. We further argue that, while autonomy to make decisions is an important aspect of devolution, this autonomy needs to be operationalised within an appropriate constellation, including a progressive political-economic culture, sufficient bureaucratic authority and resources, and an active and informed citizenry. As such, devolution is a two-way process of having powers devolved from above and building capacity from below to make use of these powers effectively. We conclude by reflecting critically on the potential of existing strategies in the two contexts to overcome social inequalities and realise the aspirations of “just devolution.”

Suggested Citation

  • Liam O'Farrell & Roman Zwicky, 2022. "“The System Is the System, Isn’t It?”: The Case for a Just Devolution," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 75-85.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v7:y:2022:i:3:p:75-85
    DOI: 10.17645/up.v7i3.5291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/5291
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.v7i3.5291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Nicholas Gill, 2004. "Is There a Global Link between Regional Disparities and Devolution?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2097-2117, December.
    2. Davoodi, Hamid & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 244-257, March.
    3. Zhang, Tao & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 221-240, February.
    4. Iimi, Atsushi, 2005. "Decentralization and economic growth revisited: an empirical note," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 449-461, May.
    5. Austin Barber & Stephen Hall, 2008. "Birmingham: whose urban renaissance? Regeneration as a response to economic restructuring," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 281-292.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2011. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 619-643, July.
    2. Floriana Cerniglia & Riccarda Longaretti, 2013. "Federalism, education-related public good and growth when agents are heterogeneous," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 271-301, July.
    3. Vassilis Tselios & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2020. "Did Decentralisation Affect Citizens’ Perception of the European Union? The Impact during the Height of Decentralisation in Europe," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Yuanshuo Xu & Mildred E. Warner, 2022. "Crowding Out Development: Fiscal Federalism after the Great Recession," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(2), pages 311-329, March.
    5. Christian Lessmann, 2009. "Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparity: Evidence from Cross-Section and Panel Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(10), pages 2455-2473, October.
    6. Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2011. "Can the economic impact of political decentralisation be measured?," Working Papers 2011-02, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    7. Liam O'Farrell & Roman Zwicky, 2022. "“The System Is the System, Isn’t It?”: The Case for a Just Devolution," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 75-85.
    8. Whitney Buser, 2011. "The impact of fiscal decentralization on economics performance in high-income OECD nations: an institutional approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 31-48, October.
    9. Ligthart, Jenny E. & van Oudheusden, Peter, 2015. "In government we trust: The role of fiscal decentralization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 116-128.
    10. Brueckner, Jan K., 2006. "Fiscal federalism and economic growth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 2107-2120, November.
    11. Luis Diaz-Serrano & Enric Meix-Llop, 2019. "Decentralization and the quality of public services: Cross-country evidence from educational data," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(7), pages 1296-1316, November.
    12. Calin Arcalean & Gerhard Glomm & Ioana Schiopu & Jens Suedekum, 2010. "Public budget composition, fiscal (de)centralization, and welfare," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(3), pages 832-859, August.
    13. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Vinko Muštra, 2022. "The economic returns of decentralisation: Government quality and the role of space," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(8), pages 1604-1622, November.
    14. Xianpu Xu & Shan Li, 2022. "Neighbor-Companion or Neighbor-Beggar? Estimating the Spatial Spillover Effects of Fiscal Decentralization on China’s Carbon Emissions Based on Spatial Econometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-26, August.
    15. Smith, Heidi Jane M. & Revell, Keith D., 2016. "Micro-Incentives and Municipal Behavior: Political Decentralization and Fiscal Federalism in Argentina and Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 231-248.
    16. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Diaz-Serrano, Luis, 2011. "Decentralization, Happiness, and the Perception of Institutions," CEPR Discussion Papers 8356, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Luis Ignacio Lozano-Espitia & Juan Manuel Julio-Román, 2015. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: Evidence from Regional-Level Panel Data for Colombia," Borradores de Economia 12498, Banco de la Republica.
    18. Kayode Olaide & Beatrice D. Simo-Kengne & Josine Uwilingiye, 2022. "Sustainable Development–Fiscal Federalism Nexus: A “Beyond GDP” Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-37, May.
    19. Luis Diaz-Serrano & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2015. "Decentralization and the Welfare State: What Do Citizens Perceive?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(2), pages 411-435, January.
    20. Phu Nguyen-Van & Thi Kim Cuong Pham & Duc-Anh Le, 2019. "Productivity and public expenditure: a structural estimation for Vietnam’s provinces," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 95-120, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v7:y:2022:i:3:p:75-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.