For decades, the United Kingdom has been something of a paradox in the international landscape of multilevel governance. Despite its deep regional identities and pronounced territorial inequalities, it remains one of the most centralized countries in the industrialized world. While Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have gained substantial devolved powers, England has largely remained governed through a highly centralized political and fiscal system.
This centralization is particularly evident in the relationship between central and local government. Local governments in England have limited fiscal autonomy, with local taxation accounting for an exceptionally small share of public revenues by international standards. Central government retains extensive control over local government finances, public investment, and service delivery priorities, while local authorities depend heavily on centrally determined funding arrangements. Decades of fiscal constraints, particularly since 2010, have further weakened local government capacity. As a result, England’s local governments operate within a system characterized by strong central oversight, limited fiscal discretion, and a deeply entrenched culture of top-down administrative control.
That may now be changing. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the British government has embarked on an ambitious effort to reshape the country’s territorial governance. A recent Cabinet statement, Rewiring the State, published in July 2026, promises a radical devolution of the British state and a remaking of territorial politics. This reform agenda is closely tied to Burnham’s political identity as the former mayor of Greater Manchester and his longstanding advocacy for the English North. Rather than emerging primarily from traditional party-political divisions, the push for devolution reflects a new politics of geography, in which territorial inequalities, regional identities, and resentment of London’s dominance have become powerful drivers of national political change.
In a thought-provoking new article in The Political Quarterly, entitled “A Machiavellian Moment? Devolution and the New Politics of Place”, Kevin Morgan and John Tomaney examine what may prove to be a pivotal moment in British territorial governance. The authors argue the government’s commitment to fundamentally reshape the relationship between central government and England’s cities and regions represents more than another round of administrative decentralization: it may signal a fundamental shift in the political forces shaping the British state.
From territorial grievance to political devolution
Historically, demands for devolution in the United Kingdom have been driven primarily by Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. England, despite its considerable regional disparities, lacked comparable political movements demanding territorial autonomy. Morgan and Tomaney suggest that this historical pattern is being reversed. Under the leadership of Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, longstanding grievances about the concentration of political and economic power in London have become the basis for a broader political project.
This emerging politics of place combines three demands: redistribution, through a fairer allocation of investment and economic opportunity; recognition, through greater respect for regional identities and experiences; and power, through stronger institutions capable of making decisions locally. The government’s July 2026 statement, Rewiring the State, responds to these concerns with an ambitious commitment to transfer powers, resources, and functions to elected mayors and local authorities across England.
Importantly, this is not simply an argument for transferring administrative functions from central government to regional authorities. It reflects a growing recognition that local territorial inequalities are also political inequalities, shaped by who has the authority to make decisions and whose interests are represented in national policymaking.
Does devolution deliver an economic dividend?
A central question in the article concerns the economic case for devolution. Advocates argue that subnational governments are better positioned to understand local economic conditions, mobilize local knowledge, and develop policies tailored to the needs of their communities. By contrast, nationally standardized policies may be poorly suited to the diversity of local economies. Yet the empirical evidence is less straightforward.
Morgan and Tomaney distinguish between the advocacy literature, which generally anticipates positive economic effects, and the analytical literature, which finds that outcomes depend heavily on institutional capacity, policy design, and intergovernmental relationships. Drawing on research by Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and others, they emphasize that decentralization does not automatically produce stronger economic performance. Transferring responsibilities without adequate resources or administrative capacity can undermine rather than improve development outcomes.
The authors also reference the OECD’s Making Decentralisation Work (2019), which argues that the effectiveness of decentralization depends less on whether powers are devolved than on how the overall multilevel governance system is designed and implemented.
Greater Manchester illustrates both the opportunities and limitations. Although its devolved governance arrangements have supported economic development, growth has remained concentrated in the city center, while inequalities persist across the wider region. Successful devolution therefore requires more than promoting metropolitan growth. It also requires attention to social infrastructure, public services, local capacity, and the needs of communities outside major urban centers.
Rewiring the state requires more than transferring powers
Perhaps the most important contribution of Morgan and Tomaney’s analysis is their recognition that meaningful devolution requires changes at both ends of the intergovernmental relationship. The British government’s proposals face three interconnected challenges.
First, central government itself must change. The United Kingdom’s highly centralized fiscal system, particularly the dominance of HM Treasury, has fostered a culture of central oversight and micromanagement. Devolution cannot succeed if local authorities receive new responsibilities while remaining dependent on centrally controlled, short-term funding arrangements. A more decentralized system could actually strengthen central government by allowing it to concentrate on strategic responsibilities rather than managing local affairs in excessive detail.
Second, subnational institutions must develop the capacity and accountability needed to exercise greater autonomy. England’s evolving system of combined authorities and elected mayors remains highly asymmetrical, with different places enjoying different levels of power. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 provides a framework for expanding subnational authority, including a mechanism through which mayors can request additional powers. However, the authors warn that administrative capacity, fiscal resources, democratic accountability, and public participation must develop alongside these new responsibilities.
Third, the relationship between England’s emerging regional authorities and the existing devolved governments must be carefully managed. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already possess substantial constitutional autonomy, including authority over aspects of local government. The expansion of English city-region powers risks creating new tensions if comparable opportunities are unavailable elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Balancing subsidiarity with solidarity
Running throughout the article is a fundamental tension in multilevel governance: how can governments bring decisions closer to citizens while maintaining solidarity across places with unequal economic and fiscal capacities?
Greater fiscal autonomy may strengthen local incentives and accountability, but it also risks widening disparities between prosperous and disadvantaged regions. Without appropriate equalization arrangements, the places most in need of stronger public services may be least able to finance them. The authors therefore emphasize the importance of combining fiscal devolution with intergovernmental equalization and capacity development.
This is a particularly important lesson for decentralization reforms internationally. Effective multilevel governance does not emerge simply by reducing the role of central government. It requires a different distribution of responsibilities, resources, and accountability across government levels, with each level performing functions that complement rather than undermine the others.
A Machiavellian moment?
The current political juncture may be described as a potential Machiavellian moment because it offers an unusual opportunity to fundamentally reshape the state, while also confronting deeply entrenched political and institutional resistance. The promise of devolution is substantial: stronger local democracy, more responsive economic policies, reduced territorial inequalities, and a central government better able to focus on national priorities.
But the risks are equally significant. Central institutions may resist relinquishing control, subnational governments may lack sufficient resources or capacity, and new regional institutions may fail to secure meaningful democratic legitimacy.
Ultimately, the article offers an important reminder that decentralization is not merely a technical exercise in allocating functions and finances. It is an inherently political process, shaped by territorial identities, competing interests, institutional relationships, and struggles over power.
For the United Kingdom, the emerging politics of place may provide the political momentum needed to overcome decades of centralization. Whether that momentum translates into a more effective, equitable, and genuinely decentralized system of multilevel governance remains an open question.
Access the full (open access) article online: Kevin Morgan and John Tomaney (2026), “A Machiavellian Moment? Devolution and the New Politics of Place,” The Political Quarterly. Open access.
