IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v51y2003i1p51-66.html

Evaluating Devolution in Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Kay

Abstract

Reviews of devolution in Wales have been focussed so far on empirical description and positive analysis; there has been almost no discussion of how it should be judged or evaluated. I redress this imbalance by considering the arguments for devolution and the various normative values that may be used to evaluate the process. The arguments for devolution are of two basic kinds. Some are consequentialist: that devolution is desired on the grounds that it is believed to have good or desirable effects. Others are deontological: that devolution is thought to be intrinsically valuable. Any attempt to justify and evaluate devolution by consequentialist reasoning amounts to post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalisation. The social sciences are a long way from allowing the prediction of the global long‐term net equilibrium effects of a major institutional change such as devolution in Wales. I further argue that the nonconsequentialist value of autonomy is the underlying justification for the devolution process. Devolution should be judged according to how it appeals to, supports or embodies this value.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Kay, 2003. "Evaluating Devolution in Wales," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 51-66, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:51:y:2003:i:1:p:51-66
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00412
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9248.00412?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. Juliet Lodge, 1994. "Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 330-342, September.
    2. Hix, Simon, 1997. "Executive Selection in the European Union: Does the Commission President Investiture Procedure Reduce the Democratic Deficit?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 1, November.
    3. Juliet Lodge, 1994. "Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 343-368, September.
    4. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    5. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, January.
    6. Mike Marinetto, 2001. "The Settlement and Process of Devolution: Territorial Politics and Governance under the Welsh Assembly," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 49(2), pages 306-322, June.
    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. Rhys Andrews & Steve Martin, 2007. "Has Devolution Improved Public Services?," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 149-156, April.
    2. Laura McAllister, 2015. "Immature relationships in the new multi-level United Kingdom: perspectives from Wales," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 31-38, January.

    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. Asadu Ikechukwu, Ph.D & Chukwujekwu Charles Onwuka Ph.D, 2021. "Transparency and Accountability in Government: The Nigerian Experience," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(08), pages 16-29, August.
    2. Mansbridge, Jane, 2008. "A "Selection Model" of Political Representation," Working Paper Series rwp08-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Liliana Hawrysz & Jolanta Maj, 2017. "Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Geeyoung Hong, 2015. "Explaining vote switching to niche parties in the 2009 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 514-535, December.
    5. Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges & Thomas M. Leschine, 2004. "Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1641-1664, December.
    6. repec:prg:jnlwep:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:id:72:p:123-140 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Neuhold, Christine, 2001. "The "Legislative Backbone" keeping the Institution upright? The Role of European Parliament Committees in the EU Policy-Making Process," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 5, August.
    8. Štěpán Strnad, 2013. "Crisis of the European Union Legitimacy - No European Demos in Sight [Krize legitimity Evropské unie - evropský démos v nedohledu]," Současná Evropa, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2013(1), pages 123-140.
    9. Wimmel, Andreas, 2005. "Transnationale Diskurse in der europäischen Medienöffentlichkeit: Die Debatte zum EU-Beitritt der Türkei," TranState Working Papers 29, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    10. Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos, 2005. "Norms, Interests and Institutional Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(4), pages 676-693, December.
    11. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    12. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2005. "Alliances and negotiations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 128-141, March.
    13. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    14. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    15. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    16. Soetkin Verhaegen & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2014. "European Identity and Support for European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 295-314, May.
    17. Kempf, Hubert & Rossignol, Stéphane, 2013. "National politics and international agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-105.
    18. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Ahmet Ozkardas, 2015. "On equilibrium payoffs in wage bargaining with discount rates varying in time," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 181-199, October.
    19. Qian, Dong & Guo, Ju’e, 2014. "Research on the energy-saving and revenue sharing strategy of ESCOs under the uncertainty of the value of Energy Performance Contracting Projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 710-721.
    20. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2006. "Information Gathering, Transaction Costs, and the Property Rights Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 422-434, March.
    21. Rasch, Alexander & Wambach, Achim, 2009. "Internal decision-making rules and collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 703-715, November.

    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:bla:polstu:v:51:y:2003:i:1:p:51-66. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    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.