IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ieadps/313960.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Slicing up the public sector: A radical proposal for devolution

Author

Listed:
  • Packer, Tom
  • Sinclair, Matthew

Abstract

Large economic gains are to be had from greater devolutionSummary:The recent Scottish independence referendum opened up an important debate about the appropriate level of governance for all regions of the United Kingdom. However, many of the current proposals, such as English votes on English matters, city deals, and an 'English Parliament', are flawed.The UK is highly centralised and devolution combined with fiscal decentralisation could bring significant economic benefits. This can happen through several mechanisms: decisions will be taken closer to those they affect; there will be more policy experimentation; and there will be horizontal competition between jurisdictions.Unlike the current situation where devolution is selective, devolution should be symmetrical: all authorities to which power is devolved should have the same responsibilities. This improves accountability for both national and local government. If devolution continues to be extended to areas where voters prefer a larger role for government, policy experimentation will be limited and the size of government will increase.Westminster should remain sovereign, and powers devolved to local authorities should be clearly enumerated. Central government should remain responsible for foreign affairs and defence, major infrastructure projects, competition policy and migration.The ideal should remain that services such as schools are accountable to those who use them, rather than to local or national politicians. Broadly conceived competition powers should ensure that consumers are able to transact freely across local authority boundaries and consumers are not confined to local monopolies.Devolution throughout the UK should be applied to the following areas of spending and regulation: welfare, environmental policy, health, housing and labour market policy. There is also scope to devolve significant other law-making powers relating to the control of purported localised externalities, particularly where local variation in preferences might be expected.To obtain the benefits of devolution, tax-raising powers must be devolved alongside spending powers. Central and subnational government should have distinct sources of revenue. The evidence suggests that the decentralisation of spending alone reduces economic growth whereas the decentralisation of both spending and taxes increases economic growth.Consumption taxes are likely to have limits as a source of local revenue in a densely populated country with permeable boundaries. Local authorities should have the power to levy taxes on income and duties on natural resources, subject to approval by voters and with restrictions on the structure to prevent manipulation of the tax base.Westminster should remain responsible for the existing national debt and place restrictions on new borrowing by local authorities. The Bank of England should not accept sub-national government debt as collateral for lending operations. Borrowing by local authorities should be allowed but only to smooth spending over the cycle and to pay for large projects.Devolution should not create additional layers of government, as proposed with the new English Parliament or regional assemblies. Instead, powers should be devolved to existing county and unitary authorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Packer, Tom & Sinclair, Matthew, 2015. "Slicing up the public sector: A radical proposal for devolution," IEA Discussion Papers 59, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313960/1/iea-dp059.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Barro, 1998. "Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262522543, December.
    2. Afonso, António & Furceri, Davide, 2010. "Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 517-532, December.
    3. Hunt, E. H., 1986. "Industrialization and Regional Inequality: Wages in Britain, 1760–1914," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 935-966, December.
    4. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    5. Andrea Boltho & Wendy Carlin & Pasquale Scaramozzino, 1999. "Will East Germany become a new Mezzogiorno?," Chapters, in: John Adams & Francesco Pigliaru (ed.), Economic Growth and Change, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Norman Gemmell & Richard Kneller & Ismael Sanz, 2013. "Fiscal Decentralization And Economic Growth: Spending Versus Revenue Decentralization," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(4), pages 1915-1931, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bartolini, David & Ninka, Eniel & Santolini, Raffaella, 2017. "Tax Decentralisation, Labour productivity and Employment," MPRA Paper 81070, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & Yedgenov, Bauyrzhan, 2020. "Identifying and disentangling the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Stojcic, Nebojsa & Suman Tolic, Meri, 2018. "Direct and indirect effects of fiscal decentralisation on economic growth," MPRA Paper 108762, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2019.
    4. Septimiu-Rares SZABO, 2017. "The Empirical Relationship Between Fiscal Decentralization And Economic Growth: A Review Of Variables, Models And Results," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(2), pages 47-66, June.
    5. Kumba Digdowiseiso, 2022. "Is Fiscal Decentralization Growth Enhancing? A Cross-Country Study in Developing Countries over the Period 1990–2014," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Mehmet Ugur & Siew Ling Yew, 2017. "Does Government Size Affect Per-Capita Income Growth? A Hierarchical Meta-Regression Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(300), pages 142-171, March.
    7. Miguel, Ted, 1999. "Ethnic diversity, mobility and school funding: theory and evidence from Kenya," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6675, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    9. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Lars P. Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2016. "Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, And Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1445-1463, July.
    10. Mihaela Onofrei & Ionel Bostan & Elena Cigu & Anca Florentina Vatamanu, 2023. "Ensuring Budgetary Resources at the Level of Local Communities in the Current Social-Economic Context: Evidence for Romanian Municipalities," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Andrea Filippetti & Agnese Sacchi, 2016. "Decentralization and economic growth reconsidered: The role of regional authority," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1793-1824, December.
    12. Atella, Vincenzo & Braione, Manuela & Ferrara, Giancarlo & Resce, Giuliano, 2023. "Cohesion Policy Funds and local government autonomy: Evidence from Italian municipalities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    13. Richard Florida & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick, 2016. "Human capital in cities and suburbs," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(1), pages 91-123, July.
    14. Facchini, François & Melki, Mickaël, 2013. "Efficient government size: France in the 20th century," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-14.
    15. Nadasi Levente, 2015. "How Does Economic Freedom Influence The Relationship Between Government Size And Convergence?," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 623-630, July.
    16. Enikolopov, Ruben & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2007. "Decentralization and political institutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2261-2290, December.
    17. Facchini, François & Melki, Mickaël, 2013. "Efficient government size: France in the 20th century," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Andreas Bergh & Magnus Henrekson, 2011. "Government Size And Growth: A Survey And Interpretation Of The Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 872-897, December.
    19. Martina Halásková & Renata Halásková, 2018. "Evaluation Structure of Local Public Expenditures in the European Union Countries," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 755-766.
    20. Fortuna Casoria & Marianna Marino & Pierpaolo Parrotta & Davide Sala, 2019. "Local Government and Innovation: the case of Italian provinces," Working Papers halshs-02278092, HAL.

    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:zbw:ieadps:313960. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieaaauk.html .

    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.