By Richard Johnstone | 10 February 2014
Politicians pledging to devolve power from Whitehall at the next general election must learn from previous failures or risk repeating the errors of attempts to introduce elected mayors and regional assemblies, the Institute for Government has warned.
In a report examining the mistakes of previous attempts to decentralise power in the UK, the think-tank concluded that although political decentralisation was often desirable, it had rarely been successful.
Among the barriers to reform was a resistance within national government, where the centre often lacked faith in the competence of councils and struggled to agree on decentralisation plans.
There was also often reluctance in local government to embrace reforms, with proposals for elected mayors and regional assemblies among those stymied by local politicians reluctant to lose powers, the IfG said. In addition, members of the public had been largely apathetic to local reforms and sceptical about giving more powers to politicians.
The Achieving Political Decentralisation – Lessons from the past 30 years report concluded that successful reforms, such as devolution to Scotland and the creation of the Greater London Authority, had commanded widespread support and included meaningful and understandable transfers of power.
Parties contemplating decentralisation ahead of the 2015 general election must therefore develop a compelling case and be clear about the changes required, IfG research director Tom Gash said.
As the UK is one of the most centralised countries of its size in the world, it is unsurprising politicians want to develop plans to decentralise power, he stated.
‘For any plans to be credible, however, parties need to demonstrate that they have learned the lessons of past decentralisation successes and failures, for example the aborted effort to set up regional assemblies in 2004.
‘Evidence suggests that success will be much more likely if reforms can be made relevant to the public, have the clear support of the party leader, and if Cabinet-level colleagues are able to refrain from outlining policies in the areas they are promising to decentralise.’
