IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/121546.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

City-region devolution in England

Author

Listed:
  • Lupton, Ruth
  • Hughes, Ceri
  • Peake-Jones, Sian
  • Cooper, Kerris Maya Louise

Abstract

This paper explores recent developments in the devolution of powers to subnational governments in England and its implications for social policy making and the distribution of economic and social outcomes. It is generally agreed that England is currently an outlier among other developed nations in terms of the degree of centralisation of power within national central government, although historically local government had a much fuller role. Decentralisation of decision-making tends to be shallow, involving localized decisions on service provision, rather than deep, involving a transfer of power over policy aims and methods. Fiscal autonomy is limited. In the context of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and to some extent to London) in the last twenty years, questions have increasingly been asked about the organisation of English government, with calls for further decentralisation. In the last decade the position has begun to change, through a series of negotiated deals transferring powers to individual city-regions, the establishment of combined authorities and, from 2017, the addition of city-region mayors.

Suggested Citation

  • Lupton, Ruth & Hughes, Ceri & Peake-Jones, Sian & Cooper, Kerris Maya Louise, 2018. "City-region devolution in England," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121546, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:121546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/121546/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2010. "Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 619-644, September.
    2. Sumah, Anthony Mwinkaara & Baatiema, Leonard & Abimbola, Seye, 2016. "The impacts of decentralisation on health-related equity: A systematic review of the evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1183-1192.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cep:spccrp:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kitty Stewart & Kerris Cooper & Isabel Shutes, 2019. "What does Brexit mean for social policy in the UK? An exploration of the potential consequences of the 2016 referendum for public services, inequalities and social rights," CASE - Social Policies and Distributional Outcomes Research Papers 03, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. repec:cep:spccrr:spdorp03 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Stewart, Kitty & Cooper, Kerris & Shutes, Isabel, 2019. "What does Brexit mean for social policy in the UK? An exploration of the potential consequences of the 2016 referendum for public services, inequalities and social rights," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121548, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. repec:cep:spccrp:02 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ruth Lupton & Ceri Hughes & Sian Peake-Jones & Kerris Cooper, 2018. "City-region devolution in England," CASE - Social Policies and Distributional Outcomes Research Papers 02, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. Rey, Sergio, 2015. "Bells in Space: The Spatial Dynamics of US Interpersonal and Interregional Income Inequality," MPRA Paper 69482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Dynnikova, O. & Kyobe, A. & Slavov, S., 2022. "Regional disparities and fiscal federalism in Russia," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 55(3), pages 102-138.
    5. Hilaire Zon & Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot, 2020. "Regional health disparities in Burkina Faso during the period of health care decentralization. Results of a macro‐level analysis," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 939-959, July.
    6. Pike, Andy & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Torrisi, Gianpiero & Tselios, Vassilis & Tomaney, John, 2010. "In search of the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution: spatial disparities, spatial economic policy and decentralisation in the UK," DEMQ Working Paper Series 2010/9, University of Catania, Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods.
    7. Li, Lei & Luo, Changtuo, 2023. "Does administrative decentralization promote outward foreign direct investment and productivity? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Darius Tirtosuharto, 2022. "The impact of fiscal efficiency on poverty reduction in Indonesia: institutional factor and geographical differences," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 67-93, January.
    9. Zlatan Fröhlich, 2011. "Croatian regulatory framework and actors in national regional policy," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1841, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Vassilis Tselios & John Tomaney, 2019. "Decentralisation and European identity," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(1), pages 133-155, February.
    11. Leonardo Letelier S. & Héctor Ormeño, 2018. "El mapa de la descentralización fiscal en Chile," Journal Economía Chilena (The Chilean Economy), Central Bank of Chile, vol. 21(3), pages 004-040, December.
    12. Minyan Zhu & Antonio Peyrache, 2017. "The quality and efficiency of public service delivery in the UK and China," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(2), pages 285-296, February.
    13. Di Novi, C. & Piacenza, M. & Robone, S. & Turati, G., 2015. "How does fiscal decentralization affect within-regional disparities in well-being? Evidence from health inequalities in Italy," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 15/23, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. M A B Siddique & Heru Wibowo & Yanrui Wu, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralisation and Inequality in Indonesia: 1999-2008," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 14-22, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    15. Euijune Kim & Yasir Niti Samudro, 2017. "The impact of intergovernmental transfer funds on interregional income disparity in Indonesia," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 22-40, January.
    16. Tselios, Vassilis & Rodriguez-Pose, Andres, 2022. "Can decentralization help address poverty and social exclusion in Europe?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115545, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Jorge Díaz-Lanchas & Peter Mulder, 2021. "Does decentralization of governance promote urban diversity? Evidence from Spain," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 1111-1128, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Leonardo E. Letelier-S & José L. Sáez-Lozano, 2020. "Expenditure Decentralization: Does It Make Us Happier? An Empirical Analysis Using a Panel of Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Alfonso Díez‐Minguela & Rafael González‐Val & Julio Martinez‐Galarraga & M. Teresa Sanchis & Daniel A. Tirado, 2020. "The long‐term relationship between economic development and regional inequality: South‐West Europe, 1860–2010," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(3), pages 479-508, June.
    21. Sidra Naeem & Rana Ejaz Ali Khan, 2021. "Fiscal Decentralization and Gender Equality in Developing Economies: Dynamics of Income Groups in Economies and Corruption," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 11(9), pages 745-761, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    devolution; England;

    JEL classification:

    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General
    • H00 - Public Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:121546. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.