IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa06p798.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Process of Devolution: the Scottish Case

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvia A.R. Tijmstra

Abstract

In recent decades, many countries around the world have undergone governmental decentralizations, which transferred substantial powers and resources from the federal or central governmental arena to the regional level. This paper aims to add to the current literatures on political, policy, and fiscal decentralization by exploring how the public opinion, political party preferences, and pre-existing institutional structures influence the timing of policy change and the type of decentralization that occurs. To do so, it will draw upon the veto player theory put forward by Tsebelis (2002). The advantage of this theory, in relation to other potential theoretical frameworks, is that it provides us with a unified perspective on the potential for policy change, thereby allowing for comparison across a variety of political systems. In very general terms, it argues that, ceteris paribus, political stability increases with the number of veto players, the incongruence between the veto players’ preferences and the internal cohesion of each of the veto players. Although relevant to identifying the potential for overall change, these statements alone can not adequately inform us about the timing of policy change and its direction. It will be argued that both the timing of a move towards decentralization and the type of decentralized system that emerges are dependant on the preferences of the relevant veto players, the position of the status quo, and the identity of the agenda setters. In other words, if we want to explain why decentralization occurred in a certain way at a particular time, we need to identify the relevant veto players, gain insight into how they from preferences, and develop an understanding of the influence of the location of the status quo and the rules of the decision-making process on the way these preferences are translated into policy outcomes. Using the 1997 devolution reforms in the United Kingdom as an illustrative case study, this paper will show how such an approach offers a new and refreshing view on the factors that influence the type of decentralization that occurs in a system.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvia A.R. Tijmstra, 2006. "The Process of Devolution: the Scottish Case," ERSA conference papers ersa06p798, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa06/papers/798.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence from U.S. Federal Transfer Programs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(1-2), pages 25-35, October.
    2. Andres Rodriguez-Pose & Nicholas Gill, 2005. "On the 'economic dividend' of devolution," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 405-420.
    3. John Tomaney, 2000. "End of the Empire State? New Labour and Devolution in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 675-688, September.
    4. Michael Keating, 1998. "The New Regionalism in Western Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1193.
    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. 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.
    2. Maria Teresa Balaguer-Coll & Diego Prior & Emili Tortosa-Ausina, 2010. "Devolution Dynamics of Spanish Local Government," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(6), pages 1476-1495, June.
    3. Benito Giordano & Elisa Roller, 2003. "A Comparison of City Region Dynamics in the UK, Spain and Italy: More Similarities than Differences?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(9), pages 911-927.
    4. 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.
    5. Lóránd, Balázs & Horváth, Gyula, 2012. "Decentralizáció és gazdasági fejlődés. Az olasz példa [Decentralization and economic development. The case of Italy]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1273-1298.
    6. Muringani, Jonathan & Dahl Fitjar, Rune & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2019. "Decentralisation, quality of government and economic growth in the regions of the EU," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91023, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Marius Constantin PROFIROIU & Carmen Valentina RADULESCU, 2019. "Local Development Opportunities In The Context Of Sustainable Development By Applying The Concept Of Smart Village In Romania," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(1), pages 1059-1067, November.
    8. James Hughes & Gwendolyn Sasse & Claire Gordon, 2002. "Saying `Maybe' to the `Return to Europe'," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 327-355, September.
    9. Dejan Stjepanović, 2015. "Territoriality and Citizenship: Membership and Sub-State Polities in Post-Yugoslav Space," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(7), pages 1030-1055, August.
    10. Michael Longo, 2003. "European Integration: Between Micro‐Regionalism and Globalism," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 475-494, June.
    11. Suzuki, Takafumi, 2021. "Capitalization of local government grants on land values: Evidence from Tokyo metropolitan area, Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Rhys Jones & Mark Goodwin & Martin Jones & Glenn Simpson, 2004. "Devolution, State Personnel, and the Production of New Territories of Governance in the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(1), pages 89-109, January.
    13. Qu, Guangjun & Sylwester, Kevin & Wang, Feng, 2016. "Anticorruption and Growth: Evidence from China," MPRA Paper 72190, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Bin Dong & Benno Torgler, 2010. "The Causes of Corruption: Evidence from China," Working Papers 2010.72, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Filipe R. Campante & Quoc-Anh Do, 2014. "Isolated Capital Cities, Accountability, and Corruption: Evidence from US States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2456-2481, August.
    16. John Lovering, 2001. "The Coming Regional Crisis (And How To Avoid It)," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 349-354.
    17. Eggert, Wolfgang & Sørensen, Peter Birch, 2008. "The effects of tax competition when politicians create rents to buy political support," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1142-1163, June.
    18. Edward L. Glaeser & Raven Saks, 2004. "Corruption in America," NBER Working Papers 10821, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Aurora Castro Teixeira & Maria João Barros, 2014. "Local municipalities’ involvement in promoting the internationalisation of SMEs," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 29(1-2), pages 141-162, February.
    20. Svensson, Bo, 2000. "The Scope And Potential Of Multi-Level Governance In Eu External Relations - Lessons From The Euro-Arctic," ERSA conference papers ersa00p54, European Regional Science Association.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p798. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.