Devolution as Process: Institutional Structures, State Personnel and Transport Policy in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Abstract. Devolution has been described as a key ‘global trend’ over recent decades as governments have decentralised power and responsibilities to subordinate regional institutions. UK devolution is characterised by its asymmetrical nature with different territories granted different institutional arrangements and powers. This paper seeks to examine the role of state personnel in mobilising the new institutional machinery and managing the process of devolution, focusing on transport policy. The research presented shows a clear contrast between London and Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales, on the other, in terms of the effectiveness of political leaders in creating clear policy priorities and momentum in transport.

Notes

Technically, the creation of these institutions was a product of local government reform in England although the process has resulted in de facto devolution.

Brenner also refers to ‘state spatial projects’ which refer to how the state interacts with society more broadly to promote economic and social development.

The Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution recommended in 2009 the transfer of authority for speed limits and drink driving legislation to the Scottish Parliament.

Livingstone was a former Leader of the Greater London Council, had long been a thorn in the side of central governments (especially of Conservative administrations, but he was also seen by Tony Blair's ‘new’ Labour establishment as sufficiently iconoclastic to be barred from standing as its official candidate in the mayoral elections of 2000) and was regarded as something of a ‘champion of London’ by many of the capital's residents.

This is a reference to Sir Humphrey Appleby, the fictitious and self-interested Permanent Secretary in the Department of Administrative Affairs in the BBC sitcom Yes, Minister.

This is the operating name of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, the main public transport company in the province.

The clearest example of this being breached is in relation to the Scottish Executive's decision to fund free personal care for the elderly in 2001, which resulted in UK government policy advisors in London ‘screaming down the phone’ to their Scottish Executive counterparts in Edinburgh (Laffin and Shaw, 2007).