IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v23y2005i2p247-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair Division or Fair Dinkum? Australian Lessons for Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Kay

    (School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, England)

  • Gillian Bristow

    (Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, Wales)

  • Mark McGovern

    (School of International Business, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane 4000, Australia)

  • David Pickernell

    (Welsh Enterprise Institute, University of Glamorgan Business School, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, Wales)

Abstract

Current arguments in Australia concerning horizontal fiscal equalisation may help inform the debate in the United Kingdom concerning possible changes to the Barnett formula and the establishment of financial relations with any regional governments in England. Although Australia is a long-established federation, with mature institutions for managing the financial aspects of intergovernmental relations, the most populous states are now pushing for a per-capita-based system to replace the existing formula—based on needs and costs—overseen by the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission. This has important implications for the United Kingdom, where the Barnett formula—a per capita system for deciding annual changes in the funding for the devolved administrations—has been increasingly challenged. In particular, the Barnett system has been vulnerable to nontransparent ‘formula-bypass’ agreements. We argue that the status quo in the United Kingdom appears secure as long as England remains a single entity and the UK Treasury sees the financial implications of larger per capita expenditure in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as relatively small. However, we speculate that regionalisation of government in England would be likely to increase the pressure: to abandon the Barnett system; to look more systematically at need and cost, rather than population, as criteria for allocating funds between governments; and to move towards an Australian-type system. However, the recent experience of Australia also shows that larger states prefer a per-capita-based system allied to more political, less transparent, arrangements to deal with ‘special circumstances’. It may be that a Barnett-type formula would suit the new ‘dominant states’ in a fully federalised United Kingdom which would, ironically, create an alliance of interests between Scotland and London.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Kay & Gillian Bristow & Mark McGovern & David Pickernell, 2005. "Fair Division or Fair Dinkum? Australian Lessons for Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 23(2), pages 247-261, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:23:y:2005:i:2:p:247-261
    DOI: 10.1068/c38m
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c38m
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c38m?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Morgan, 2001. "The New Territorial Politics: Rivalry and Justice in Post-devolution Britain," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 343-348.
    2. Brian Dollery & Mark Stewart & Andrew Worthington, 2000. "Australian Fiscal Federalism: An Empirical Note On Long-Term Trends In State And Local Government Finance, 1969/70 To 1994/95," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 19(3), pages 16-27, September.
    3. David Pickernell & Mark Mcgovern, 2002. "Begging Bowl Meets Baseball Bat? Lessons for the UK from the Australian Fiscal Model," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 703-707.
    4. Arthur Midwinter, 2002. "Territorial Resource Allocation in the UK: A Rejoinder on Needs Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(5), pages 563-567.
    5. Brian E. Dollery & Andrew C. Worthington, 1996. "A Note On Political Factors In Federal Fiscal Arrangements In Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 15(4), pages 81-87, December.
    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. Rob Ball & David King & David Eiser, 2012. "Assessing the Relative Health Care Spending Needs of the UK's Devolved Territories: A Scottish Perspective," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(2), pages 322-346, April.
    2. Rob Ball & David Eiser & David King, 2015. "Assessing Relative Spending Needs of Devolved Government: The Case of Healthcare Spending in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 323-336, February.

    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. David Heald & Alasdair Mcleod, 2005. "Embeddedness of UK devolution finance within the public expenditure system," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 495-518.
    2. 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.
    3. Nuria Boch Roca & Marta Espasa & Daniel Montolio, 2014. "Should Large Spanish Municipalities Be Financially Compensated? Costs and Benefits of Being a Capital/Central Municipality," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 211(4), pages 67-91, December.
    4. Donald Mcneill, 2002. "Livingstone's London: Left Politics and the World City," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 75-80.
    5. Joan Costa-Font & Ana Rico, 2006. "Devolution and the Interregional Inequalities in Health and Healthcare in Spain," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(8), pages 875-887.
    6. Mia Gray & Anna Barford, 2018. "The depths of the cuts: the uneven geography of local government austerity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 11(3), pages 541-563.
    7. Barbara Wieliczko & Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska & Zbigniew Floriańczyk, 2021. "EU Rural Policy’s Capacity to Facilitate a Just Sustainability Transition of the Rural Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    8. Iain Deas, 2014. "The search for territorial fixes in subnational governance: City-regions and the disputed emergence of post-political consensus in Manchester, England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(11), pages 2285-2314, August.
    9. Kevin Morgan, 2002. "English Question: Regional Perspectives on a Fractured Nation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(7), pages 797-810.
    10. Nuria Boch Roca & Marta Espasa & Daniel Montolio, 2014. "Should Large Spanish Municipalities Be Financially Compensated? Costs and Benefits of Being a Capital/Central Municipality," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 211(4), pages 67-91, December.
    11. Arthur Midwinter, 2002. "Territorial Resource Allocation in the UK: A Rejoinder on Needs Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(5), pages 563-567.
    12. Gugushvili, Alexi, 2007. "The advantages and disadvantages of needs-based resource allocation in integrated health systems and market systems of health care provider reimbursement," MPRA Paper 3354, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. David Pickernell & Mark Mcgovern, 2002. "Begging Bowl Meets Baseball Bat? Lessons for the UK from the Australian Fiscal Model," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 703-707.
    14. José‐Luis Fernandez & Julien Forder, 2015. "Local Variability in Long‐Term Care Services: Local Autonomy, Exogenous Influences and Policy Spillovers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(S1), pages 146-157, March.
    15. Andy Pike & John Tomaney, 2004. "Subnational Governance and Economic and Social Development," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2091-2096, December.
    16. James Gallagher & Daniel Hinze, "undated". "Financing Options for Devolved Government in the UK," Working Papers 2005_24, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.

    More about this item

    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:sae:envirc:v:23:y:2005:i:2:p:247-261. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.